The New Orleans Greys: Where did they get their Uniforms ?

April-May 1999

That substantial units of Texian freedom fighters were organized sufficiently to have a uniform is the figment of the imagination of illustrators and artists and historians with the agenda that the Texian resistance to despotism and push for regional self-determination was substantially contributed to by regulars from the United States of the North or even a conspiracy by its politicians. Ed Miller's in depth analysis seems right on target that a sufficient number of volunteers comprising the Greys wore scavenged grey clothes of sufficient similarity to give the unit an acronym. Probably in the same way a sufficient number of volunteers scavenged up red-colored pants to label a unit the Alabama Red Rovers. Records indicate that various individuals, mostly officers, managed to bring their old US Regular outfits or obtain one and wear it individualistically with pride during their service. No doubt there were enlisted individuals with prior service (discharged or!! deserters) who managed to obtain a regular outfit, but these were no more a "uniform" or indicative of US regulars than Juan Seguin's outfit was indicative of organized participation of Mexican regulars. The uniform of the Texians, both "old settlers" and new recruits form the north was most accurately described by DeWitt Colonist and Assistant Quartermaster of the Provisional Texian Army, Valentine Bennett when asked in the days of the Republic:

"Rags were our uniform, sire! Nine out of ten of them was in rags. And it was a fighting uniform."

Unless unknown documentation can be presented to show otherwise,it would appear that the uniform worn by the New Orleans Greys was not US military surplus. The fact that the Cherokees mistook the Greys for US troops when the Greys were in Nacogdoches en route to Bexar is not enough to proclaim the Greys wore US uniforms. The Greys were supplied by donations and benefactors in addition to what they could supply for themselves. Even their flag was given to them by supporters. Santa Anna captured this flag at the Alamo and sent it back to Mexico to prove his belief that the US was attempting to take Texas from Mexico. If the Greys were wearing US uniforms, why didn't Santa Anna keep one from a fallen Grey to drive his point further?
 

Jeff Pendleton
April 6, 1999

I can't agree. New Orleans in 1836 didn't have the benefit of the military surplus stores we enjoy today. I doubt there were many choices in surplus uniforms to choose from. Of course they would be changed or altered in minor ways to help give the New Orleans Greys their own identity. As for why Santa Anna didn't bring back US equipment as a trophy...captured battle flags were/are cool to display. Bloody grimy worn torn jackets just aren't.
Robert E. Carrier
04/13/99

I have personally observed Ed Miller's research on the New Orlean Grey's and I can attest to the fact that he has made several trips to New Orleans and many archives all over the State of Texas searching for primary sources. At his own expense I might add. He originally supported the idea of US surplus uniforms, However, it became evident that that theory was merely conjecture and based on a vague description from an Native American observer.

When Ed shared his research and findings with me we both scratched our heads in wonder as what the New Orlean Grey's were wearing. First I contacted Rabbit Goody of Thistle Hill Weavers as to exactly what fustian material was. She informed us of a natural colored greyish wool jean that was commonly used for workman's clothes.

Since workman's apparel were usually sent in bales to warehouses on the docks, it seemed logical that they would be of light weight material (who in their right mind would order heavy weight material and try to sell it in New Orleans) and consisted of either straight collar or civilian collar roundabouts. Either style would be acceptable in our opinion and perhaps both styles were worn.

Then we were confronted with the challenge of what the Sealskin caps looked like. We were considered two common styles of the period. First the forage cap with a flap around the band that could be dropped to protect the neck and ears or an "Elmer Fudd" style cap with the fur still on it with ear flaps tied at the top. Besides the fact that none of the re-enactors wanted to look like an "Elmer Fudd" company; I added the following arguments:

1. New Orleans was a booming seaport and it would seem logical that the hats that were plentiful were seaman's or dockworker's forage caps.

 
2. The forage cap would have been the hat of choice in hot and moist climates.

 
3. They also had more of a military look to them.

Kevin R. Young
Date: 04/27/99

I would like to compliment Ed Miller for his work on the New Orleans Greys. Certainly, there is room for discussion on the "uniforms" of the New Orleans Greys since the initial research was done during the Texas Sesquicentennial. However, it looks from the reader comments that the "discussion" will be much like that of the so-called "de la Peña controversy". People are going to believe, based on personal convictions, prejudices and political consideration what they want. While Miller's attempt to document the "uniform" of the Greys, and appears to do so in a true academic effort, Mr. Carrier's "supportive"" piece seems to decrease the research done by Miller.

The original interpretation of the Greys being outfitted in US "surplus" uniforms was not solely based on "mere conjecture" as Carrier would have people believe. It was based on archival research and interpretations as solid as any of Mr. Miller' s work, but included work in the National Archives. A combination of factors developed the interpretation, including the comments made by the Native American at Nacogdoches. Mr. Carrier's comments in particular seem to want to diminish the works done by others in the field of the Texas Revolution for what personal and political reasons, he does not state. By his use of the term "we" I can only assume that this is a reference to a community or organization.

Miller's work is a very good contribution to a broader understanding of this particular subject, but does need some fleshing out. My own personal re-actions to Miller's original documentation as published in the Journal of the Company of Military Historians is that perhaps Miller overstated the disdain that the American (and in the case of the Greys, foreigners) had for the Regular Army of the United States. Granted, there were examples of some Mexican War volunteer groups who did not want to be in regular's clothing, but there are just as many examples of units wearing US regular uniforms. The Mina expedition of 1817 had no problems with wearing British and American "surplus" uniforms. This group, like the Greys, included US citizens and foreigners as well. To overstate the "dislike: of regular army uniforms is much like overstating the "dislike" of foreigners and immigrants in the United States at the time. It is apparent that no one had a problem serving with the non-native Americans in the Greys (like Ehrenberg). It would appear that the Texians did not have a problem with US Regulars and their clothing during the revolution, since one can document US "deserters" in the ranks and still in their uniforms. Certainly, the people of Nacogdoches had no problem with the US Regulars since they welcomed the three companies of US Dragoons and six companies of the 7th US Infantry who occupied their community during the summer and fall of 1836 (to keep US Indians for joining the Mexican cause!).

I also question the theory that the often quoted Native American did not know what "Jackson's men" looked like. Perhaps a better understanding of what was going on outside of Texas in the 1820' s and 1 830's in regards to Native American removal and the relationship that Texas and frontier Native Americans had with the US Military garrisons at Forts Jesup, Gibson, Coffee and Towson might help. By the time of the Texas Revolution, most Native Americans had a very good idea of what the US Military looked like, especially the Civilized Tribes. Even those who left their lands East of the Mississippi before Jackson's removals had constant contact with the US Military on the frontier.

I agree with Miller that "all the sources" should be considered. Perhaps then a look at what was happening to the old pattern US Army uniforms might clear up what Mr. Cook, Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Carrier object to. The US military on the frontier was disposing of its old clothing. If material in the National Archives or even the Army-Navy Chronicles had been consulted, then a pattern of disposal of the old pattern uniforms on the frontier and the Mississippi valley could have been noted.

On aspect of the interpretation that should be considered in this discussion is that there are two groups of New Orleans Greys. These two units did not serve with each other until they were in the field at San Antonio. Later re-arrangements of the Texian forces would through members of the two companies into the same organizations, but when the Greys were organized and equipped, it was as two separate companies. Is there documentation that both were clothed and equipped the same? If not, then documentation for both companies is being combined to make a single impression. Ehrenberg served in Breece's Company while Heth served in Cooke's. That separate companies are uniformed and equipped differently at the time of organization is not rare: it happened all the time in the War of 1812, Seminole and Mexican Wars.

If only Ehrenberg or Heth could have drawn what they were wearing!

The issue of the various translations of Ehrenberg can also confuse matters. Like many of the Mexican documents that have been translated over the years, [interpretation of] 19th century terminology seems to suffer. Recent translations of Ehrenberg have been, quite frankly, disappointing. One editor confuses the Lipan Chief Castro (whom Ehrenberg apparently met) with later colony organizer Henri Castro (who did not come to Texas until 1844). Ehrenberg's work itself needs some serious scholarly appraisal, for like many such writings of this type, a political viewpoint is present. Anyone, who has read the complete Ehrenberg, as Miller has, will note that the work is extremely anti-Hispanic and anti-Catholic. It is hoped that Dr. James Crisp's new edition of Ehrenberg will shed some new light on the complete work.

While I know that he does not agree with my conclusions or questions I hope that Miller keeps his research going, and continues to expand by using all of the research materials available. But the issue of the New Orleans Greys, like so many other aspects of the Texas Revolution, is far for being defined. While Mr. Carrier and Mr. Cooke are confident enough to proclaim the interpretation issue at a rest, others, based on a larger understanding of the issue, are not. And perhaps some have a little more faith that Chief Bowles, later killed by the volunteer soldiers of the Texas Republic, knew what he was talking about.Kevin R. Young

Robert M. Benavides
05/20/99

The article by Robert P. Wettemann titled "Jackson's Men" and Army Gray: Clothing the Volunteer Companies from New Orleans was a very interesting historical contribution that promised a rebuttal as to what type of clothing was worn by the New Orleans Greys. His introductory paragraph states that, "These sources, overlooked in the initial analyses offered by Miller, definitively establish two important facts: ..." and "...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. Mr. Wettemann concludes his premise by countering, "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." So, as I began reading, it appears that one historian's research is a notion while another's is a traditional interpretation.

To begin with, Ehrenberg's use of the German word for clothing in reference to his New Orleans Greys apparel was different from the word that he used to describe the Mexican military uniforms that he saw. The words used for clothing and uniforms also differ in Spanish, English, Italian, and French dictionaries, regardless of a writer's political views on religion or ethnicity. That point, it seems, is one that will be determined for some readers only by Dr. Crisp's forthcoming translation. Okay, so be it. Mr. Wettemann next presents a very informative historical description of Chief Bowles and the Cherokee experience with U.S. troop presence on lands west of the Mississippi River. Unfortunately he completes the narrative on that subject by stating, "Moreover, operating under the assumption that the New Orleans Grays did in fact wear surplus army uniforms, ..." By using the "operating under the assumption that .... did in fact" phrasing, Wettemann clearly begs the question. With no other substantive documentation, his assumption is not a fact and can only be categorized as a big "IF". While countering Miller's caution to historians regarding "reading too much" into a document, he apparently does not heed that warning himself. Thankfully Wettemann does follow up by admitting, "While it is not possible to make this conclusion based solely upon an examination of the circumstances behind Bowle's question, supporting evidence for these contentions can be found in the records of the U.S. Army Quartermaster Department." At this point, I was glad to read that the "circumstantial evidence" thus far presented was inconclusive and was to be followed by "supporting evidence" from the National Archives and Records Administration that would "definitely establish" the fact that surplus U.S. Army old pattern gray uniforms were sold on the Western civilian markets in the summer and fall of 1835.

Next, Wettemann writes, "...uniforms of the old pattern were sold on the open market by the fall of 1835," and "Despite prejudices against the regular army held by many in the United States, the ready availability of such uniforms would have made military surplus and obvious choice for outfitting any hastily raised volunteer company." Sale of government property on the "open market" normally requires a public announcement, such as in area newspapers, giving the date and place of the auction in order to receive public bids for the surplus items. Where are the documents proving any government property sales in New Orleans? The "would" in the ready availability statement is a cousin to the "IF" used above.

Let's see what is "definitely established." In brief, the letters from the QM General's Letters Relating to Clothing Estimates take the reader to: Ft. Gibson, 7^th Infantry HQ, the Board of Survey, a Detroit army depot for an old clothing inspection, Ft. Towson for a list of old pattern uniforms issued to Cos. A, C, G, and I of 3^rd Infantry, and to the outfitting of the entire regiment of the 7^th Infantry at Ft. Jesup. Major John Garland then writes, "...Previous to the date of the order referred, 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." Is there a document stating in which city that this "portion" of uniforms was sold? The next Garland letter dated April 20, 1835, states "The Secretary of War has decided that the `Infantry clothing, of the old pattern' in possession of Asst. QM General at Ft. Leavenworth [Kansas] shall be sold at public auction in the city of St. Louis, and directs that you give the necessary orders in the case." Perhaps Wettemann or an interested associate should track down a copy of the Army's public auction announcement and date in the St. Louis newspapers to help determine exactly when those uniforms went into private hands, and what were their subsequent disposition(s).

The next letter is Garland to Arbuckle, dated August 24, 1835, regarding the Board of Survey reasons "to cause an order for the sale of the clothing under the direction of the Quartermaster's Department," concludes with "The order will reach you in a few days." It is not unreasonable that the orders took from one week to almost a month to arrive at various forts. Perhaps Mr. Wettemann will agree with this estimate because he did follow up by writing, "It took some time for this information to make it to the far western posts." Thus, the first Garland letter to QM General Thomas Sidney Jesup, dated August 28, 1835, stated, "The Secretary of War directs that old pattern clothing in possession of the QM Department at Fort Coffee be disposed of in like manner with that of Ft. Gibson." If the QM General responded to Major Garland's August 28^th letter quickly, then an order mailed to Fort Coffee on September 1, 1835, definitely would "take some time to arrive." After posting and placing notices of the public auction near Fort Coffee, the uniform sale(s) would have taken place in late September, 1835.
 

Time + Place = Availability. Availability + Purchase in New Orleans = Fact.

Public notices of the Fort Coffee auction need to be found to establish the exact date of sale. The next step needing to have occurred would be that the civilian purchasers near Ft. Coffee would have to decide that, instead of selling locally, they could sell their surplus old pattern uniforms at a greater profit in New Orleans! Their decision to re-sell these used uniforms in far-away New Orleans would need to include consideration of the shipping costs to that city while still leaving enough margin from their planned sales to make a sufficient profit for all of their efforts. The sequence of events would be 1.) uniform purchase near Fort Coffee, 2.) shipping New Orleans, and 3.) placement in stores or warehouses just in time for sale to the sponsors of the New Orleans Greys. This would have had to occur within about three weeks. The New Orleans Greys were outfitted and clothed between October 15-19, 1835, prior to New Orleans departure for Texas on October 20^th. Where is the documentation to prove that this sequence occurred? A more logical, and simpler, business decision for these entrepreneurs would have been to sell their surplus uniforms near Ft. Coffee or in the city where they were auctioned.

Another Garland letter was dated September 29, 1835, to the Asst. QM at Fort Macon, North Carolina. That order could be expected to have arrived sometime in October, 1835. The critical timeline sequence for this order to impact the New Orleans Greys is not credible. Subsequent Garland letters dated November 14, December 8, and December 22, 1835, do "definitively establish" that old pattern uniforms were sold in early 1836. Other secondary sources referenced address the U.S.-Mexican War and other periods not applicable to the rebuttal. Mr. Wettemann does educate readers about 1.) Chief Bowles and the Cherokee familiarity with the U.S. government and Army, and that 2.) "surplus U.S. Army old pattern uniforms were sold on the Western civilian markets in the [late] summer and fall of 1835." Claims of presenting "indisputable" facts do not call into question Miller's "arguments" or his primary documents from New Orleans. The obvious lack of any New Orleans-connecting documents in the rebuttal only creates questions, not answers, for the reader. There is not even a document stating that, once the entire 7^th Infantry at Ft. Jesup was completely uniformed, there were surplus uniforms to be sold. Wettemann's documentation failed to place any U.S. Army surplus uniforms in New Orleans before, during, or after the time period when the New Orleans Greys were formed. Although his information is interesting, it misses the intended purposes stated in his opening premise. Nevertheless, he writes in the last paragraph of the rebuttal, "The information provided provesbeyond 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." Available in New Orleans? I think not. The rebuttal offered has holes in both documentation and logic that are glaring. Nevertheless, as a parting shot he writes, "Based on 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." Based on the Wettemann evidence presented and my analysis of his documentation, there still is no evidence to counter, much less reject, Miller's original research on the New Orleans uniform.

Does anyone know whose research generated the unsubstantiated "traditional" interpretation that Kevin R. Young referred to on 4/27/99? Considering his knowledge, insightful comments, and his own research experience in the National Archives, perhaps Mr. Young might be able to provide some key documentation that would fill in the missing pieces in Mr. Wettemann's defense of this "traditional" interpretation. I agree with Messrs. Wettemann, Miller, and Young that "all sources should be considered" for a more comprehensive, not revisionist, understanding of this and other New Orleans questions during the Texas Revolution. The only question that I have at this point is: Who is going to chase down the documentation on the disposition of those old pattern uniforms sold in St. Louis in late 1834? The timeline window is still open on this one. With St. Louis being the "gateway to the West", they could have clothed men traveling towards the Rocky Mountains. Meanwhile, the best evidence available at this time points to Ed Miller's work as the new research standard on this question. Good luck to all in their future research.

Robert M. Benavides