Military Collector and Historian Spring 2018 Vol 70 No. 1 by CMHist

Military Collector & Historian Journal of the Company of Military Historians

Assault by the 22d (French Canadian) Battalion at Neuville-Vitasse, 27 August 1918 Vol. 70, No. 1

Spring 2018

Military Collector & Historian Vol. 70, No. 1

Spring 2018

Washington, DC

The purpose of the Journal is to disseminate information on the material culture, history, and traditions of members of the Armed Forces of the United States worldwide and other nations serving in the Western Hemisphere.

COMPANY OF MILITARY HISTORIANS®

Board of Governors Steven M. Baule, Ed.D., Ph.D. Lt. Col. Charles H. Cureton, USMCR (Ret.) Col. Robert S. Driscoll, USA (Ret.) Juanita Leisch-Jensen Gordon Jones, Ph.D. Robert Kotchian Marc Sammis Sam Small John Thillmann President Craig D. Bell Vice President for Administration Alejandro M. de Quesada Vice President for Publications Col. John K. Robertson, USA (Ret.), Ph.D. Secretary Larry Munnikhuysen III Treasurer Patrick Gloyd Administrator and Assistant Treasurer David M. Sullivan MILITARY COLLECTOR & HISTORIAN Editor David M. Sullivan Graphics and Layout Editor Chuck Veit Assistant Editors D. Franklin Arey III Maj. James B. Ronan II, USAR (Ret.) Marc Sammis Timothy G. Terrell MILITARY UNIFORMS IN AMERICA Editor René Chartrand Assistant Editor Maj. James B. Ronan II, USAR (Ret.) COMPANY WEB SITE: http://www.military-historians.org Electronic Editor Steven M. Baule, Ed.D., Ph.D.

IN THIS ISSUE World War I Real Photograph Postcard of U.S. Army Officers, by Alan Bogan..........2 Shoulder Sleeve Insignia of the District of Paris, A.E.F., by Dan Joyce.......................3 Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery: How the U.S. Took a German Ordnance Item for its Own, by Thomas A. Crawford.................................5 The Shoulder Sleeve Insignia of the Fourth Brigade of Marines, 1918–1919, by Kenneth L. Smith-Christmas and Owen Linlithgow Conner............................ 12 U.S. Army Gold Team Prizes, 1906–1923 ,by Lt. Col. William K. Emerson, USA (Ret.). 19 The Sailmakers Detachment: Italian American Tailors in the Air Service in World War I, by Maj. Peter L. Belmonte, USAF (Ret.).................... 27 A 1912 Real Picture Postcard of a Sailor from USS Franklin, by Anthony F. Gero..... 34 Testing Underwater Ordnance in the Patuxent During World War II, by Merle T. Cole........................................................................................................35 A Dragoon on Trial: The Quality of Military Justice and the Court-martial of Pvt. Percival Lowe, by Will Gorenfeld..........................................57 Francis Back, by René Chartrand............................................................................... 62 Capt. George T. Balch, U.S. Army Ordnance Department, and his 1861–1862 Letter Book, by Charles Pate................................................... 63 Capt. John S. Wilson of Danville, Pennsylvania, 1840 to 1847, by Randy W. Hackenburg.......................................................................................79 Women’s Motor Corps of America Coat, 1917–1920, by Marc W. Sammis.............. 85 Clothing the Confederate Soldiers of South Carolina, 1861–1865, by Ron Field....... 88 My First Flight in an F–4 Phantom, by Lt. Col. John Norvell, USAF (Ret.)............... 94 MILITARY UNIFORMS IN AMERICA 965: Compagnies franches de la Marine, “Canadian Style” dress, mid-eighteenth century, by Francis Back and René Chartrand .......................... 50 966: “MarPat” (Marine Pattern) USMC Camouflaged Utility Uniform, 2002, by John M. Carrillo and Kenneth Smith-Christmas.............................................. 52 967: Royal Navy Officers’ Dress Uniforms, 1814–1815, by Peter Rindlisbacher and René Chartrand........................................................ 54 FEATURES On Our Covers .............................................................................................................33 The Message Center: From the President....................................................................56

Military Collector & Historian (ISSN-0026-3966) is published quarterly by the Company of Military Historians. © 2018 Company of Military Historians, Company of Military Historians®, and the Rifleman logo are registered trademarks of the Company of Military Historians. All rights reserved including the right to reproduce this Journal in any form whatsoever. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Address all general business or advertising correspondence to: The Company of Military Historians, Box 910, Rutland, MA 01543–0910; telephone 508–886–7777. Address all editorial correspondence to the Editor, David M. Sullivan, 84A Pleasantdale Road, Box 238, Rutland, MA 01543-0238; e–mail dsulli7875@aol.com Address all MUIA correspondence to the MUIA Editor, René Chartrand, 60 du Pavillon, Gatineau, QC J9H 0E8 Canada; e–mail plumee@sympatico.ca Address all publications seeking Company sponsorship to: David M. Sullivan, The Company of Military Historians, P.O. Box 910, Rutland, MA 01543–0910.

Military Collector & Historian

World War I Real Photograph Postcard of U.S. Army Officers Alan Bogan Recently acquired at a local show is this World War I period real photo postcard. It shows a large group of U.S. Army officers of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) on board a ship. They appear to be at sea and some sailors are in the background. Most, if not all, of the officers are captains and lieutenants. My best guess it is a group of casual officers on their way back to the United States from Europe in 1919. On the reverse of the postcard are the words, “Carte Postale.” The most interesting aspect of the image is the variety of AEF Shoulder Sleeve Insignia (SSI) visible on the officers’ uniforms. I believe I found SSI for all of the AEF Regular Army divisions except the 8th plus a lone IV Corps.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

Shoulder Sleeve Insignia of the District of Paris, A.E.F. Dan Joyce

he District of Paris shoulder sleeve insignia is not one of the more colorful insignia of World War I, but its form is quite distinctive. The trefoil or fleur-de-lis in white, silver, or silver-gray on an inverted black triangle is steeped in French history. Unfortunately, for our troops, it was the wrong kind of history. Before we get to that, just where and what was the District of Paris? On 3 November 1917, the force charged with maintaining discipline in the Paris area was saddled with the awkward handle “US Troops in Paris,” initially commanded by the assistant provost marshal. In May of the following year,1 the designation “District of Paris” began. While the district was within the operational area of the Intermediate Section, Service of Supply (SOS), it stood as an independent organization. The district was disbanded on 7 October 1919. Now that we know the where and when, what was within the District of Paris? The district contained several American hospitals as well as headquarters for most war work organizations. Quartermaster and ordnance storehouses were also within the district. Doctors, nurses, military police, and Marines acting as military police, made up a large portion of its military population. During the war and long after, the area was forbidden to the majority of A.E.F. enlisted personnel. As with most American shoulder sleeve insignia, the district received verbal permission to adopt the insignia after the war was over, in this case February 1919.2 On 7 February, Brig. Gen. W. W. Harris, commanding the district, sent a memo3 to Maj. Gen. James G. Harbord, commanding general of the Service of Supply, to confirm authorization. He also enclosed samples of the insignia. In the letter he wrote the adoption of a distinctive insignia was necessary for “discipline and to distinguish [their] men from casuals.” He further noted the insignia would be painted on both front vehicle doors in white and that the Peace Commission could not use the district insignia. They were to use a broad purple band on the rear and both

sides of vehicles.4 Insignia approval occurred before 15 February and specifications noted. For officers the insignia would be a “black broadcloth triangle with a silver-gray fleur-delis of silver thread in the center.”5 The triangle was “to measure 3¼ inches across the base and 4¼ inches on the sides.”6 It was to be “worn base up on the left arm with the baseline flush with the top of the sleeve.”7 Purchase of the officers insignia was at one of four suppliers in Paris: 64 Rue Ponthieu, 11 Rue Faubourg St. Honore, 35 Rue de l’Echiquier and La Dayen, and 7 Rue Turbridge.8 For enlisted men the insignia would consist of a triangle of black broadcloth with a silver-gray fleur-de-lis of broadcloth placed in the center. Dimensions were the same as for officers.9 Enlisted men could buy the insignia at Magasin de Louvre, Rue de Rivoli 164.10 This suggests enlisted men were not issued insignia like other units and had to personally purchase their insignia. Col. John T. Knight, Chief Quartermaster, Service of Supply, did not receive the insignia approval by 14 February and would not authorize their manufacture or let civilian contracts.11 The District of Paris replied it had already received verbal approval from Major General Harbord, Service of Supply. It also pointed out General Order No. 7, Headquarters, Service of Supply dated 6 February 1919, also sanctioned the insignia. The chief quartermaster of the A.E.F. authorized the manufacture and supply of the insignia.12 On 6 March, Harbord recommended approval and sent it on to General Headquarters, A.E.F. By 11 March, Major General Woolfolk, General Headquarters, got into the fray, stating since the chief quartermaster had started manufacture (which was incorrect), and Harbord had recommended approval, then General Headquarters would approve as well. He further stated only General Headquarters could officially approve insignia.13 This put Harbord and the chief quartermaster, A.E.F. in their respective places. Brig. Gen. J. M. Carson, Deputy Chief Quartermaster

FIG 1. Embroidered Liberty Loan variation for enlisted men. The fleur-de-lis is white and the background olive drab. Courtesy of Dan Griffin, Griffin Militaria.

FIG 2. Officer’s silver bullion fleur-de-lis on a black felt background. Made in France. This example has a horizontal rectangular extension to be sewn into the uniform sleeve seam. Courtesy of Dan Griffin, Griffin Militaria.

FIG 4. Officer’s flat silver wire fleurde-lis on a black felt background. Made in France. Courtesy of Dan Griffin, Griffin Militaria.

FIG 3. Officer’s silver bullion fleur-de-lis on a black felt background. Made in France. Courtesy of Dan Griffin, Griffin Militaria.

FIG 5. Enlisted man’s machine embroidered gray fleur-de-lis on a black background. Courtesy of Dan Griffin, Griffin Militaria.

Military Collector & Historian

of the District of Paris, wrote he thought he had received verbal authority from General Headquarters. He went on to say he would have never authorized manufacture except with GHQ approval.14 Brigadier General Harris (District of Paris) sent all previous insignia correspondence to Headquarters, Service of Supply and General Headquarters, A.E.F., for their files. This convoluted tale FIG 6. Enlisted man’s gray felt fleur-de-lis on illustrates that everyone involved had sufficiently covered a black felt background. This example has a their collective rears. horizontal rectangular extension to be sewn Meanwhile, 1st Lt. Harry Parker, commanding officer of into the uniform sleeve seam. Courtesy of the 1st Censor and Press Company, sent a memo to the Dan Griffin, Griffin Militaria. adjutant general at Headquarters, District of Paris, about the insignia. He questioned whether it was the intention for the enlisted men to purchase insignia out of their own funds. In the district there were no company funds for this Notes 1. 6 May 1918. purpose.15 Lieutenant Parker sent a courier to Magasin de 2. Commanding General, District of Paris, to Commanding General, Service Louvre, Rue de Rivoli 64 [sic] to secure prices. The best of Supply, 7 February 1919, confirming previous verbal authority and retail price would be 3.60 – 3.15 francs each in wholesale enclosing examples, Box 2049, Records of the American Expeditionary quantities. They would not be ready for sale until, Forces (World War I), Record Group 120, National Archives Building, 16 “Tuesday of next week” (25 February 1919). An undated Washington, DC, (hereafter NAB). reply to Parker shows the enlisted men would not receive 3. Ibid. them free and prices were to be as follows: Wholesale prices: In silk 315 francs per hundred In silver 350 francs per hundred Retail prices: In silk 3.60 francs each In silver 4.25 francs each (machine made) In silver 6.90 francs each (hand made)17

Even before issue, criticism had started. First Lt. Stephen Early knew his French history. He sent a memo to Gen. Dennis Nolan, Assistant Chief of Staff, G–2, General Headquarters, A.E.F. In it he wrote the “fleur de lis was an emblem of the Royalists of France, and at one time a brand by which criminals and prostitutes were marked.”18 He described a scene from, “The Three Musketeers where ‘My Lady’ was disrobed, and recognized by the Fleur de Lis, branded as a prostitute and of ill repute.”19 The following is a list of major variations. As always, there are always new examples to be found: Black or Navy blue triangle with fleur-de-lis as listed below: 1. White or gray embroidered fleur-de-lis; 2. Gold or silver embroidered fleur-de-lis; 3. Gold or silver bullion fleur-de-lis; 4. Applied white or gray felt fleur-de-lis; 5. “Liberty Loan” machine embroidered fleur-de-lis on a black triangle with no extra black to sew into the shoulder seam on an olive drab rectangle; 6. Most are of the same size but larger versions do exist; 7. Sometimes the extra felt above the triangle was not turned into the shoulder seam making the insignia appear larger.20

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. General Order No. 2, District of Paris Headquarters, Box 2049, RG 120, NAB. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. As a side note, this general order also stated the fourrageres and foreign decorations were not a part of the American uniform and would not be worn. Also, members of the American Peace Commission and A.E.F. personnel on duty with it would wear the American Peace Commission insignia, which was issued by the Personnel Officer, 4 Place de la Concorde. Lastly, personnel relieved of duty with Army corps or divisions would immediately crease to wear their old insignia. 10. Ibid. 11. Chief Quartermaster, Headquarters, Service of Supply (SOS), to Assistant Chief of Staff, G–1, 14 February 1919, Box 2049, RG 120, NAB. 12. Second indorsement, Headquarters, SOS, to CG, District of Paris, 27 February 1919 and third indorsement, CG, DoP to HQ, SOS 3 March 1919, Box 2049, RG 120, NAB. 13. Fifth indorsement, GHQ, AEF, to HQ, SOS, 11 March 1919, Box 2049, RG 120, NAB. 14. Memo from Brig. Gen. J. M. Carson, Deputy Chief QM, District of Paris, to Acting Chief of Staff (G–4) Service of Supply, Box 2049, RG 120, NAB. 15. Memo from CO, 1st Censor and Press Company, to AG, HQ, District of Paris Box, 2049, RG 120, NAB, 120. 16. Ibid. 17. Memo to Lieutenant Parker, probably from AG, HQ, DoP, no date, Box 2049, RG 120, NAB. 18. Memo from Lieutenant Early to General Nolan, GHQ, 1919, Box 2049, RG 120, NAB. 19. Ibid. 20. Author’s observations over a thirty-year period. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery: How the U.S. Took a German Ordnance Item for its Own Thomas A. Crawford Introduction hile history is resplendent with examples of one belligerent using the tactics and weapons of another, it is less known the United States has done this as well; especially in the twentieth century. Yes, most know of the importation of former German scientists for our fledging rocket program that ended with the Apollo Moon landings; however simpler, more lethal examples are lesser known. By being able to learn about and following the development of German ordnance supplied to the United States by Great Britain prior to our entry into World War II, the United States had a better start on countering the current threat. These threats were not insignificant, learning to counter some of the first submunitions developed and deployed for the sole purpose of denying areas to troops and causing civilian displacement. Utilizing inerted specimens of the German SD–2“Schmetterling” (butterfly), U.S. Army Picatinny Arsenal conducted tests and produced a copy of this munition for our own use. These were initially classified as 4 pound fragmentation bomb T10, with fuzes T47, 48, and 49; later given the proper type approved nomenclature, M83 with fuzes M129, M130, and M131. The fuzes as produced for use in the American copied bomb, performed in the same manner as the German original, just with slightly simplified construction. These small changes were employed solely to increase and simplify production and their leading to increased quantities of bombs in less time.1 In addition, the design of the bomb was simplified in order to facilitate yet another increase in its rate of manufacture. The U.S. design yielded a weapon produced in two equal halves, welded together around its circumference; whereas the German design produced a bomb made as a single piece. This unique difference is a feature used today as a positive means of identification feature in the field by Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel. The M83 4-pound Fragmentation Bomb, was finally classified as obsolete in 1975, but not before it was supplied to other countries as a result of the participation by the United States Mutual Defense Aid Programs. Deplopyment of these “Butterfly Bombs” can still be encountered in the fields of foreign nations today. This is a lasting legacy indeed for German ordnance technicians.2

A Detailed Description of the German Bomb The “Butterfly Bomb” (or Sprengbombe Dickwandig 2kg or SD–2) was a 2-kilogram anti-personnel submunition used by the Luftwaffe during World War II. It was so named because its thin cylindrical metal outer shell when hinged open when during deployment gave it the

FIG 1. Field warning sign used in European Theater. Courtesy of U.K. MoD/ U.S. Army Historical Archives.

superficial appearance of a large butterfly. The distinctive design of this antipersonnel weapon made it easy to recognize. SD–2bomblets were not dropped individually, but were packed into containers holding between 6 to 108 submunitions e.g., the AB 23 SD–2and AB 250–3 submunition dispensers, or carried on under wing racks that dropped the submunitions in series or salvos. The SD–2 submunitions were individually released after the container was dropped by the aircraft and respectively burst open. Owing to the fact SD2s were always dropped in groups (never in singlet) the discovery of one unexploded SD–2 was a reliable indication any number of bombs had been dropped nearby.3 This bomb device type was one of the first cluster bombs ever used in combat and it proved to be a highly effective weapon. The bomb containers that carried and released the SD–2 bomblets and scattering them into the air were alternatively referred to as the “Devil’s Eggs” by Luftwaffe air and ground crew.4 The SD–2 were targeted against British cities, often being dropped in combination with other high explosive and incendiary ordnance. A relatively small weapon, its primary purpose was as an area denial, anti-personnel

Military Collector & Historian

FIG 4. Modern model of the under wing bomb rack system used on various Luftwaffe aircraft to carry single SD–2s, also the open shipping crate showing the shipping configuration. Courtesy of Eduard Bassin, Master Modeler.

Functional Description of the Individual Bomblets (Submunition) Following the bomblet’s release, torsion springs pop the wings open. Air drag pulls the spring-loaded assembly to FIG 2. Current use bombing range / impact sign. Courtesy of the the end of the connecting cable piece where it sets and, in author. turn, locks it into the wing’s body. This assembly proceeds bomblet, and booby-trap device. The primary intention of to rotate, unscrewing the threaded arming spindle from its use was to slow the progress of troops, create much the fuze body itself. This thread has a stop that keeps it needed repair of bomb damage, and terror inducement from completely becoming detached from the body of the bomb assembly. Once the spindle completes about following a bombing raid.5 A common configuration for the SD–2 was to load them ten turns, the released parts of the fuze, rotate into an into a container with a capacity for twenty-three bomblets armed position. Once armed, insitu disarmament was whose appearance resembled that of a standard 50kg-HE not possible. The bomblet had to be destroyed in place, thereby making damage to property and the risk of injury bomb. The AB–250 bomblet dispenser would hold 144 of or death unavoidable.8 These diminutive but lethal devices were found on the anti-personnel SD–2 submunitions, or 30 of the anti-armor SD–4 submunitions.6 AB–250s were most roofs, on beds, hanging by one wing through ceilings, and frequently carried by the Focke-Wulf–190F/G series the only way for the bomb disposal squads to deal with aircraft. However, AB–250s could be carried by a wide them was to blow them up with a charge wherever they variety of aircraft, up to and including the infamous Me– happened to be. Com. Sir Aylmer Firebrace, C.B.E., R.N., Chief of Fire 262 jet fighter-bombers. Me–262s were sent on nuisance raids against Eindhoven in early 1945 loaded with AB– Staff, British National Fire Service, wrote: 250 bomblet dispensers.7 A Grimsby, UK, fireman told me “they tied the whole town up for three days—everything came to a standstill.”

A German prisoner of war told our bomb disposal people the Luftwaffe dropped some containers of butterfly bombs onto a race course near Paris in order to give their bomb disposal squads the experience of coping with them. The result was a number of German casualties. Very thorough.

FIG 3. Luftwaffe ground crew loading SD–2s on JU–87. Courtesy of LuftAchive.de.

Historical Notes The German Schmetterling (Butterfly) bombs were first used against Britain at Ipswich, in 1940, but were also dropped on Kingston, Hull, and Grimsby and upon Cleethorpes in June 1943. Additional attacks were carried out elsewhere in the United Kingdom. These bomblets were subsequently used against Allied forces starting in the Middle East. The British government deliberately suppressed news of the damage and disruption caused by butterfly bombs in order not to encourage the

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

FIG 6. German SD–2 in Full Deployed configuration Courtesy of Dave Birkin.

FIG 7. German SD–2, full deployed configuration. Note triangle wings in use Courtesy of Dave Birkin. FIG 5. Butterfly Bomb deployment sequence identical for both U.S. and German munitions. Courtesy of Dave Birkin.

On the island of Malta in 1981, Paul Gauci, a forty-oneyear-old Maltese man, died after welding a butterfly bomb Germans to keep using them. On 28 October 1940, some to a metal pipe and using it as a mallet, thinking it was butterfly bombs that had incompletely armed themselves a harmless can. The latest find of such a bomb was on were discovered in Ipswich by British bomb disposal 28 October 2009, by an eleven-year-old boy in a secluded technicians Sergeant Cann and 2d Lieutenant Taylor. valley close to a heavily bombed airfield. This bomb was By screwing the arming rods back into the fuzes (i.e. the safely detonated on-site by the Armed Forces of Malta.12 unarmed position) the two men were able to recover safe The SD–2 Butterfly Bomblet would be fitted with one of examples of how to reverse engineer.9 three fuzes, which were made of aluminum and stamped The SD–2 saw use in the opening stages of Operation with the model type surrounded by a circle. All were Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union. factory installed and set: (1) impact or air burst, (2) long Twenty to thirty aircrews had been picked to drop SD– delay (5–30 minutes), and (3) antihandling. The bomblet 2s and SD–10s (10 kg-submunitions) on key Soviet has a lethal radius of up to seventy yards.13 airfields, a flight of three aircraft being assigned to each Dopp. Z. 41 or 41AZ fuze—has an external selector field. The purpose of these early attacks was to cause switch with two settings. The Z or “Zeit” (time) setting disruption and confusion as well as to preclude dispersion will detonate the bomb in the air, approximately five of Soviet planes until the main attack was launched. It seconds after being armed. The AZ or Aufschlagzünder was reported Kampgeschwader (Fighter Squadron) 51 (impact) setting triggers detonation when the bomb hits had lost fifteen aircraft due to accidents with the SD–2s, the ground. The fuze is armed if four screw threads at the nearly half of the total Luftwaffe losses that day.10 base of the arming spindle are visible. This fuze is highly The last recorded death from a German butterfly bomb sensitive to disturbance if the selector switch is set to Zeit in England occurred on 27 November 1956, over eleven and the bomb is unexploded. The particular switch setting years after the end of the war: Flight Lt. Herbert Denning of any type 41 fuze is clearly visible on its exterior. of the RAF was examining an SD–2 at the “Upminster L.Zt.Z 67 fuze—or Langzeitzünder (long time delay Bomb Cemetery” (some remote sandpits situated East fuze). The time of detonation can be set between five and of RAF Hornchurch, where unexploded ordnance disposal thirty minutes, in five minute increments, after arming (UXB) experimentation operations and research work itself in the air. This fuze also has an external selector took place) when the SD–2 device suddenly detonated. switch for impact detonation. The particular switch Denning died of shrapnel and blast injuries at Oldchurch setting of any type 67 fuze is clearly visible on its exterior. Hospital the same day.11 Zünder 70A or B fuze—anti-handling (i.e. booby-

Military Collector & Historian

FIGs 8 & 9. German SD–2 in full deployed configuration (left) and closed/shipping configuration (right). Bomblet is safe. Courtesy of the Imperial War Museum © IWM (MUN 2447).

FIG 12. SD–2 as it would sometimes become entangled with trees, vegetation or buildings. Courtesy of Dave Birkin. FIG 13. Top view of German Dopp. Z–41 fuze. Note selector switch with AZ (impact) and ZEIT (time). Courtesy of Dave Birkin.

FIG 10. Butterfly Bomblet as it would appear upon landing, armed and functioning if delay or disturbance fuzed, dud fired if impact fuzes. Courtesy of Dave Birkin.

FIG 11. Another view of German SD–2 upon landing. Note difficulty in observing type fuzed employed. Courtesy of the Imperial War Museum © IWM (MUN 2447).

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

FIG 14. Various color schemes used on German manufactured SD–2s, others may exist but as of now no verifiable information has been found. Authors notes, combined with assistance from Dave Birkin.

trap) will trigger detonation if the bomb is moved after impact with the ground. The fuze is armed if three screw threads at the base of the arming spindle are visible.14 Butterfly bombs were usually found painted either straw yellow (desert camouflage, or if fitted with the Dopp Z (41) or (41) A fuze), dark green or gray. The German technical reports show the following colors used as standard. Red Oxide—Normally associated to training use (bomb omitted smoke) Field Grey—A lighter version of the normal dark green & sometimes seen on World War II German gas mask containers Dark Green—No identification markings Dark Green—With yellow identification band on drogues’ only (sometimes hastily brush applied) Dark Green—With yellow identification band and red band on wings and drogues (red denoting “SD”) Yellow—over-all yellow with red bands on wings. Two variations of yellow shade have been identified from original examples; one quite bright, another of a more golden/dark yellow. 15

The American Version The United States manufactured a copy of the SD–2. It was widely used in the second half of World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam War. After technical ordnance evaluations it was designated the M83 fragmentation bomb. The four-pound fragmentation bomb was used in the U.S. M28 100 lb. (preloaded) and M29 500 lb. cluster bomb (field loaded).16

FIG 15. Portion of technical drawing from U.S. Army Ordnance Development 1944 for U.S. M–83 four-pound fragmentation bomb. U.S. Army Ordnance Archives.

This U.S. made M83 antipersonnel fragmentation bomb (now known as a submunition) entered active use in the middle 1940s and afterwards. Picatinny Arsenal was the main developer for the United States. It is an almost identical copy of the infamous German SD–2 Splitterbombe (“Splinter Bomb”), commonly known to the Allies as the “Butterfly Bomb,” both bombs had this nickname attached to itself. Very few characteristics differ between these two munitions.17 The M29 cluster bomb, a 500-pound cluster bomb used by the United States Army Air Force (later United States Air Force), Navy, and Marine Corps aircraft beginning

Military Collector & Historian

in World War II, against troops, airfield, unarmored vehicles, and artillery positions, as well as an area denial munition. The weapon contained ninety four-pound M83 fragmentation submunitions, in nine ten-bomb “wafers.” The M28 was a one hundred-pound equivalent of the M29 containing twenty-four bomblets. This bomb was shipped from the factory preloaded. All contained a mixed load of different fuze types with intermixed fuze settings. Both cluster-bombs were fitted with a mechanical time fuze that could be set to open the cluster at a preselected time between five and ninety seconds by triggering a burster charge. The case sides and ends sprung open, allowing the bomblets to be freed and fall out. The bomblets spring loaded cup shaped wings opened; the canted sides imparted a counterclockwise rotation of the bomblet, while helping to retard the fall as well, the wings rotated to arm the fuze.18 U.S. Fuzing There were three fuzes available for the U.S. Butterfly bomb: M129, M130, and M131. The fuzes were armed after 3½ (¼-inch of travel) revolutions of the arming cable assembly, this is rotated by the deployed drogue wings. M129 Bomb Fuze—designed to function approximately five seconds after the cluster opens (aerial burst) or upon impact. The setting switch on top of the fuze body, designating “ground or air,” can be set for the desired functioning. The fuze is set in the factory and the wafers are not to be disassembled in the field to alter the settings. M130 Bomb Fuze—a mechanical time fuze which can be

FIG 17. U.S. Air Force M–29 cluster bomb unit after accidental jettisoning from aircraft. Note now armed Butterfly Bombs around cluster, circa 1966. Courtesy the author.

FIG 18. Ordnance Field Guide, Vol II, Revised September 1945 (Harrisburg, PA: Military Service Publishing Company, 1946).

FIG 19. Dud U.S. M–83 in Laos found in 1993 during ordnance clearance operations to restore farming land. Courtesy the author.

set to function at various times up to thirty minutes. The time setting is predetermined at the factory and cannot be adjusted in the field. M131 Bomb Fuze—an antidisturbance fuze which arms upon impact and will be functioned by vibrations or disturbances in its near vicinity.19 The U.S. manual warns that, “Use of the M131 (antihandling) fuze is not recommended in areas that are expected to be occupied by friendly forces as they constitute a potential booby-trap hazard.”20

FIG 16. Exploded view of inert U.S. M–83 four-pound bomblet. Courtesy of the author.

Conclusion Some references have been made by foreign historians the German Butterfly Bomb holds the distinction of being the “first scatterable mine,” followed by the Italian Thermos Bomb; however, reading of the German technical

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

FIG 21. German Luftwaffe personnel posting danger sign in France during World War II. Courtesy of Dave Birkin.

FIG 20. German Butterfly Bomb warning sign distributed in Great Britain during World War II. Courtesy of the Imperial War Museum © IWM (MUN 2447

manuals does not give this ordnance item that deployment usage. Neither did the design outline of intended usage. One example references German General Rommel having staff officers fly over areas prior to deploying these bombs; they were used to supplement hand laid minefields. Never were they classified as scatterable mines or looked upon as such. It would not be proper to apply late twentieth century tactical thinking to items used prior to the advent of such. Notwithstanding this point, the German SD–2 was the first submunition designed, deployed, and updated for use exactly as today’s cluster munitions are designed for. As the grandfather of cluster munitions, the “Butterfly” Bomb has a firm claim to this distinction, and as an outstanding idea it was duplicated by the United States to even greater usage. Notes 1. Engineering Technical Summery, Picatinny Arsenal, U.S. Ordnance Corps, U.S. Army Data Sheet 104–44, 1944. 2. U.S. Naval EOD School, Notes from Air Ordnance Division, Submunitions, author’s collection, March 1979. 3. U.S. Navy, NAVORD OP 1666, German Explosive Ordnance, 11 June 1946, 32–34. 4. Jonathan Garraway, ”Operation Barbarossa,” Fly Past, no. 359

(June 2001): 70. 5. Royal Army, Department of Unexploded Bomb Division, Bulletin 306, 8/43, Lecture Notes on Butterfly Bombs, sect III, (8). 6. U.S. Navy, NAVORD OP 1666, German Explosive Ordnance, 11 June 1956, 30–31. 7. Robert Forsyth, Me–262 Bomber and Reconnaissance Units (Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2012), 31. 8. U.S. Army, Army Technical Manual, TM9–1985–2, March 1953, 42–44. 9. James I. Rogers, (21 June 2013), “Remembering the terror the Luftwaffe’s butterfly bombs brought to the North,” The Guardian, retrieved 9 February 2016. 10. Maj. Lonnie O. Ratley III, “A Lesson of History: The Luftwaffe and Barbarossa,” Air University Review (March-April 1983). 11. web.archive.org/web/20120304162916, www.rafbdhistory.co.uk/ new_page_6.htm. Archived from the original on 4 March 2012, retrieved 14 May 2012. 12. “Boy Finds Lethal WWII Bomb in Qormi Valley,” Times of Malta, 29 October 2009. 13. U.S. Navy, NAVORD OP 1666, German Explosive Ordnance, 11 June 1956, 36–39. 14. Ibid. 32–33. 15. U.S. Army, Army Technical Manual, TM9–1985–2, March 1953, 44–45. 16. U.S. Navy, Bureau of Ordnance Circular Letter, AV14–44, 31 May 1944. 17. Engineering Technical Summary, Picatinny Arsenal, U.S. Ordnance Corps, U.S. Army Data Sheet 104–44, 1944. 18. Ordnance Field Guide, Vol II, Revised September 1945 (Harrisburg PA: Military Service Publishing Company, 1946), 410–413. 19. Ibid. 20. U.S. Navy, Bureau of Ordnance Circular Letter, AV14–44, 31 May 1944.

Military Collector & Historian

The Shoulder Sleeve Insignia of the Fourth Brigade of Marines, 1918–1919 Kenneth L. Smith-Christmas and Owen Linlithgow Conner

n 1982, an article entitled, “Genesis of a Shoulder Sleeve Insignia” by K. L. Smith-Christmas, the then-registrar of the Marine Corps Museum, appeared in the U.S. Army Center for Military History’s quarterly museum publication, The U.S. Army Museums Newsletter. Its publication was preceded by a much-condensed version in the spring 1980 issue of the Marine Corps’ historical quarterly, Fortitudine. Both of these articles had been written without the benefit of being able to examine and analyze original artifacts as, at that time, the registrar’s access to the collection was confined solely to incoming acquisitions and outgoing loans. Moreover, the collections were in need of some serious curatorial attention. Fortunately, however, the insignia on some uniforms in the collection were hurriedly photographed and recorded in what catalog record files were then extant. The article reads as follows: Genesis of a Shoulder Sleeve Insignia In World War I the 2d Division first used the Indianhead to identify its transport on the crowded French roads. Many officers and men had a hand in its design By K. L. Smith-Christmas During the early planning stages for a special art exhibit entitled, “Through the Wheat,” the Marine Corps Museum staff decided some portion of the exhibit should deal with the star and Indian head insignia worn as a shoulder patch by both the 4th Brigade of Marines and its parent 2d Division (Regular Army), American Expeditionary Force (AEF) during World War I. With the rapidly growing interest in World War I uniforms and insignia, this would not only add to the exhibit, but would also clear up some misconceptions regarding the insignia. The insignia itself is unique in the World War, and the story of its evolution is fascinating, in that so many individuals were involved in its design and application. It was one of the few divisional insignia of the AEF to be used for a tactical purpose. Luckily, the staff found it had a mass of documentary material upon which to base captions for the exhibit’s artifacts. Richard A. Long, curator of special projects, had “rediscovered” an entire file of documents in the Reference Section of the Marine Corps Historical Center dealing with the evolution of the insignia. Tim Nenninger, an archivist with the Navy and Old Army Branch of the National Archives, who researched the AEF records, discovered many documents that were missing from the files Mr. Long had located. As research continued, all the museum’s “Indian head” uniforms in storage and in the research collection were documented. With the possible exception of several units during the

Mexican War, the AEF’s 2d Division was the only hybrid Army/Marine division ever fielded by the United States. It was composed of two infantry brigades, the 3d (Army) and 4th (Marine), the 2d Field Artillery Brigade, and divisional troops. Its first commanding general was Brig. Gen. Charles A. Doyen, USMC, the commander of the 4th Brigade and the senior officer on board when the division was organized on 26 October 1917. He was relieved by Army Maj. Gen. Omar Bundy on 18 November 1917. In mid-July 1918, Brig. Gen. James G. Harbord (Army), became the division commander, but less than two weeks later turned over the command to Marine Maj. Gen. John A. Lejeune, and assumed control of all AEF logistical activities. General Lejeune remained as commander of the division until it was returned to the United States and broken up on 3 August 1919. The evolution of the division’s insignia began in March 1918, when its transport became intermixed with French Army wagons and camions en route to the front lines for the first time near Verdun. On the road through Neufchateau, Gondrecourt, Ligny, and Bar-le-Due, it became apparent some type of distinguishing insignia was needed on the vehicles to prevent the mass confusion which plagued the march. On 28 March, Lt. Col. William F. Herringshaw, commander of the 2d Supply Train, issued a memorandum outlining the problem and offering prizes to members of his five companies who submitted the best unit insignia. After assessing each officer five francs, he set the three prizes at 40, 25, and 10 francs each.1 Many designs were submitted but the contest committee could not reach a decision. Breaking the stalemate, Colonel Herringshaw superimposed the Indian head design submitted by Sgt. Louis J. Lundy, of Company A, on the white star design submitted by Sgt. John Kenny of Company B. (The committee awarded first prize to Lundy and second prize to Kenney.) Colonel Herringshaw then forwarded a proposal to division headquarters, 12 April, recommending the insignia be stenciled on all 2d Division vehicles and suggesting a blue bonnet and red face on the Indian’s head. Two days later, General Bundy approved the recommendation and requested the design be stenciled on his staff car. This was done while the automobile was undergoing minor repairs at La Ferte-sous-Jouarre, near Chateau-Thierry.2 Throughout the summer of 1918, little thought was given to the use of an insignia for anything else but vehicles. With the battles of Belleau Wood and Soissons, the 2d Division had enough to worry about. However, in the lull before the St. Mihiel offensive, during a conference of 9th Infantry Regiment officers, on 4 September, a system of

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

However, the letter is rather confusing, since Lieutenant Youngdahl stated without clarification red patches were also used. He also left unclear what color the regimental headquarters and the supply and machine gun companies used. In any case, regimental headquarters and Companies A, E, and I wore a triangle of cloth in their particular color with the apex pointing up. Companies B, F, and K wore the triangle with the apex pointing to the front. The regimental supply company and Companies C, G, and L wore the triangle with the apex pointing down. Companies D, H, and M wore the triangle facing to the rear. Youngdahl made the additional recommendation that any unit temporarily attached to another unit be FIG 1. Medal of Honor recipient Lt. Louis Cukela (second from left) poses with Capt. Robert Blake (second from right), with Chaplain required to wear that unit’s insignia in addition to its Mokely and another officer of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines. Both own. Although his company commander, Capt. F. F. Cukela and Blake are wearing insignia with the Indian head Hall, favorably endorsed his recommendation, there is no painted on the white star. evidence the battle-tested scheme was continued during 5 unit identification was devised. Following the prevalent the Meuse-Argonne campaign. As the 2d Division neared the Meuse River after weeks British Army system of geometric cloth tactical patches, it was decided regimental headquarters personnel would of hard fighting, General Lejeune found time to answer a wear a three-inch square of red and white cloth, divided telegram from AEF Headquarters, asking him to submit diagonally from lower left to upper right with the red a design for a proposed divisional insignia. The general portion uppermost. The 3d Battalion was to wear a three- outlined his recommendation on 20 October, but this did inch square of red cloth, sewn three inches down each not satisfy higher headquarters, which telegraphed again sleeve from the shoulder. The 2d Battalion decided on one- that same day requiring a full written explanation of the inch squares of white cloth on the rear of the left shoulder, proposed system as well as a sample drawing of the Indian as its officers believed a large white insignia on each sleeve head and star design. General Lejeune wrote back the next would draw enemy fire. The 1st Battalion, which was to day saying he proposed to use an Indian head copied after be the last “over the top,” was to wear three-inch blue St. Gauden’s sculpture on the American five-dollar gold squares on each arm. However, it went into action with piece. This was to be embroidered on a white star and bare sleeves.3 Maj. Hanford MacNider, the officer sent to would be of better artistic quality than the paper sample enclosed in the letter. He justified the insignia stating Toul to obtain material, could not find any blue cloth. Obviously, the brigade commander, Brig. Gen. Hanson E. “the design has been used in this division for some time, Ely, approved of the scheme, as he directed the officers of and already [has] been painted on all the transportation both the 23d Infantry and the 5th Machine Gun Battalion of the division.” In anticipation of its approval “steps had to meet on the afternoon of 6 September 1918 and decide already been taken to procure insignia of this design for on respective insignia for use in the forthcoming offensive. issue to each officer and enlisted man in the division.” The His memorandum, which described the insignia adopted general asked for full approval as soon as possible so “the by the 9th Infantry, mistakenly reported the three-inch insignia could be issued before the division goes into the line again.”6 squares of material as being· four-inch squares.4 On 6 November, five days before the Armistice, General Following the action of St. Mihiel, on 22 September 1918, 1st Lt. Oskar E. Youngdahl of Company G, 23d Infantry, Lejeune received approval to use the design submitted the sent a letter to his regimental commander recommending previous month. Insignia instructions were promulgated the series of distinguishing patches adopted on 6 to the division on 14 November under Order No. 29. The September be retained, as they had “facilitated regrouping insignia was to be “worn on the left shoulder with the top and reorganization of the men at the various stages of the of the insignia at the shoulder seam of the coat.” The order action.” From his letter we learn the system used by the further noted the star would be of such dimensions as to 23d Infantry was a series of isosceles triangles worn on the be contained in an imaginary circle of three and one-half left sleeve, four inches below the shoulder. The insignia of inches in diameter. The Indian head was to be centered the 1st Battalion was green, that of the 2d Battalion white, on the star and would have a red face and blue bonnet. The head could be either stamped on the white star or, and that of the 3d Battalion blue.

Military Collector & Historian

On UPRIGHT PROJECTILE 17th Field Artillery Regiment (used same system as 9th Infantry, except that 2d Ammunition Train used same colored backing as Supply Company of 17th Field Artillery Regiment) On CASTLE 2d Engineer Regiment (used same system as 9th Infantry, except that 2d Engineer Train used same colored backing as 2d Engineer Regiment)

as was usually the case, embroidered. After specifying the different colors and shapes of the cloth backgrounds for each component unit, the order required all unit commanders to provide the cloth backings to their troops On GREEK STYLE CROSS pending receipt of the star and Indian head insignia.7 (Green) 2d Sanitary Train Basically, the overall scheme was to use easily recognizable shapes of varied, but more or less systematically colored, Recently retired Marine Lt. Gen. Merwin H. Silverthorn cloth backings. In general, black was used to denote told John L. Stacey, a Washington area historian and headquarters units and purple machine gun and trench artillery units; most supply units used green. Use of other colors, however, was not as consistent. In most cases, red was used by the 1st battalions of each of the four infantry regiments; yellow by the 2d battalions of the infantry or Marines; and blue by the 3d battalions of the 3d or 4th Brigades. The cloth backing of the patches were as follows: On SHIELD (Black) Division Headquarters (Yellow) Headquarters Troop (Red) 1st Field Signal Battalion (Blue) Train Headquarters and Military Police (Purple) 4th Machine Gun Battalion (Green) 2d Supply Train On HEXAGON (Black) 3d Brigade Headquarters (Purple) 5th Machine Gun Battalion On PENTAGON (Black) 9th Infantry Regiment Headquarters and Headquarters Company (Green) Supply Company (Purple) Machine Gun Company (Red) 1st Battalion (Yellow) 2d Battalion (Blue) 3d Battalion

FIG 2 (left). 2d Division Headquarters Insignia—“This insignia of the 2d Division (Regular) AEF headquarters is a finely embroidered Star & Indian Head, as opposed to one of the standard issue embroidered versions. This patch belonged to Marine Lieutenant General John A. Lejeune.” Courtesy, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 1985.984.1. FIG 3 (right). HQ Co., 5th Marines—“Although it is not now known for certain when the embroidered insignia first appeared, there are several variations to the Indian chief’s face and his war bonnet. This one, on the black square backing (velvet) of the Headquarters Company of the 5th Marines, is one of the most visually pleasing versions. It is associated with Gunnery Sergeant John W. Clark.” Courtesy, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 2004.104.19.

On CIRCLE 23d Infantry Regiment (used same system as 9th Infantry) On HORIZONTAL OVAL (Black) 4th Brigade Headquarters (Purple) 6th Machine Gun Battalion On SQUARE 5th Marine Regiment (used same system as 9th Infantry) On DIAMOND 6th Marine Regiment (used same system as 9th Infantry) On VERTICAL OVAL (Black) 2d Field Artillery Brigade Headquarters (Purple) 2d Trench Artillery Brigade On HORIZONTAL OBLONG 12th Field Artillery Regiment (used same system as 9th Infantry)

On VERTICAL OBLONG 15th Field Artillery Regiment (used same system as 9th Infantry)

FIG 4 (left). MG Company, 5th Marines—“This insignia from the Machine Gun Company of the 5th Marines was painted by a talented artist, but not the same artist who painted insignia in other units. It is stitched onto a square of purple felt, and belonged to Corporal Joseph France Foley.” Courtesy, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 2007.40.1. FIG 5 (right). 1st Bn, 5th Marines—“Contrasting with other beautifully painted Indian Heads, is this one, done in a much cruder style. It is from the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines and was worn by then-Sgt. Albert A. Taubert, a recipient of the Navy Cross, who later had quite a career in the ‘Banana Wars’ in Haiti. The red background was crudely constructed from a civilian quilt.” Courtesy, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 1994.82.17.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

FIG 6 (left). 2d Bn, 5th Marines—“There were several variations of the mass-produced, embroidered version of the Star & Indian Head, with different facial features on the Indian’s face and different colored feathers in his war bonnet. This one, from the 2d Battalion, 5th Marines, has white feathers in the bonnet, and the long vertical crease in the Indian’s face. It was worn by Corporal Allen J. Wells, who, at the time, served with the 18th Company (Co E, 2/5).” Courtesy, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 2004.102.17. FIG 7 (right). 3d Bn, 5th Marines—“This variation of the massproduced Star & Indian Head, has the feathers outlined in blue, and it has been crudely stitched onto the blue square of the 3d Battalion, 5th Marines. Corporal Allen J. Wells was reassigned to the 3d Battalion in June 1919.” Courtesy, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 2004.102.18.

collector of Marine Corps uniforms, that the star and Indian head insignia were issued embroidered on long strips of cloth tape.8 They were also embroidered on large squares of khaki wool.9 Each soldier or marine was expected to cut off his insignia, trim it, and either sew it on the cloth backing himself or have the company tailor do it. Although the cloth insignia were completely standardized on uniforms, such was not the case regarding wheeled transport. During the occupation of Germany, an order was issued which specified insignia dimensions to be used on all the division’s transport not already bearing

FIG 8 (left). HQ Co., 6th Marines—“This version of the painted Star & Indian Head has the feathers painted in different colors. It is stitched onto the black diamond backing for Headquarters Company, 6th Marines, in black velvet. This insignia was worn by Private Paul Dallas Rust, who served in that unit for the duration of the war and the occupation of Germany.” Courtesy, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 1996.2.1. FIG 9 (right). 1st Bn, 6th Marines—“Obviously, there were some qualified and talented artists in the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, as this example is one of the best of the early hand-painted insignia. It was worn by Sergeant Charles H. Barnes during his service with the 75th Company (Co B 1/6).” Courtesy, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 1987.243.1.

divisional markings. This order, written 12 March 1919, also provided the cross and ribbon of the Croix de Guerre be painted on the transport of those units which had been awarded this decoration.10 Various sized vehicular insignia were based on the diameter of an imaginary circle in which the star was placed. For instance, all motorcycle gasoline tanks were to be painted with a star and Indian head which would fit in an imaginary three and one-half-inch circle. Shapes and colored backgrounds were in compliance with Order No. 29 of 14 November 1918. The 12 March 1919 order is noteworthy as it listed all the different types used by the division at the time. The dimensions and placement of the insignia on the various transport were as follows: 5-inch Insignia Motorcycle sidecars: in center of front cowl. Touring cars and staff observation cars (white): centered on both front doors. Machine gun cars: centered on both middle doors. Light trucks and motor ambulances: side—on both middle doors centered on first full-sized panel from front; rear— centered on right-hand panel. Escort wagons—side: centered on second panel from front; rear—centered on right-hand panel.

Ration carts and medical carts: left side only—centered on first panel from front; rear—centered on right-hand panel. Water carts: sides—centered on the tank; rear—centered on the tank. Rolling kitchens: sides—centered on first panel from front. Combat wagons (caisson type): sides—on limber only,

FIG 10 (left). 2d Bn, 6th Marines—“Again, the Indian Head has been painted by another artist, this time in the 2d Battalion, 6th Marines, and is painted on a white twilled material. It is in a more orange-hued yellow, and is on the service coat worn by Captain Amos R. Shinkle.” Courtesy, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 1993.138.1. FIG 11 (right). 3d Bn, 6th Marines —“The 6th Marines also made use of one of the versions the mass-produced Star & Indian Head, and this one, on the blue diamond of the 3d Battalion, 6th Marines, has the feathers outlined in blue, with a short vertical crease in the Indian’s face. It is associated with Sergeant Clarence Baumgartner, who served with the 82d Company (Co I, 3/6).” Courtesy, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 1982.55.1.

Military Collector & Historian

centered on upper front wing panel; rear—centered on upper right-hand panel. Machine gun carts: rear—centered on rear end of box containing machine gun. Machine gun ammunition carts: rear—centered on rear of left-hand toolbox. 10½-inch Insignia Heavy trucks: sides; centered on first panel from front; rear—centered on right half of tailgate or bumper. Engineer tool wagons: sides—centered on third upper panel from front; rear—centered on right-hand panel.

Even as these insignia were being regularized and painted on vehicles, the origin of the insignia was becoming clouded in myth. The divisional magazine, The Indian, reported in May 1919 an unknown truck driver had dreamed up the insignia all by himself and had painted it on his truck without authorization in early 1918. According to the article, his commanding officer liked the idea and directed all the trucks to be painted in that manner.11 Despite the many efforts throughout the years to debunk this fictional account, it is still current. A variation of the insignia, which is often a point of confusion to historians and collectors, was its use without any colored cloth backing. These insignia, according to General Silverthorn and former Commandant Clifton B. Cates, were worn by the two companies from the 2d Division that were temporarily attached to the 1st Composite Regiment, A.E.F.12 This regiment was formed in the late spring of 1919 as a ceremonial unit and participated in several parades, both in Europe and in the United States, after return from Germany. Marines wore these insignia on Marine dress blue and forest green blouses and on Army khaki blouses. Unfortunately, the Marine Corps Museum does not have any Army blouses bearing the 2d Division insignia with 4th Brigade cloth backings. These are very rare, although the Marines wore them during the war and later occupation. They all were replaced with Marine Corps blouses when the brigade returned to Quantico in August 1919.13 The men transferred their insignia to their new uniforms and the Army-issue blouses were disposed of. The star and Indian head is used to this day as the official patch of the 2d Infantry Division, U.S. Army. Its only use left in the Marine Corps is on the unit plaques of the 6th Marines.

FIG 12. 6th MG Bn—“The entire 6th Machine Gun Battalion wore their Star & Indian Head insignia on a purple horizontal oval. This example is one of the variations of the mass-produced embroidered insignia, with the feathers outlined in blue, and with long vertical creases in the Indian’s face.” Courtesy, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 2012.115.7.

FIG 13 (left). “Lejeune Blanket”—“The men of the 2d Division presented this display, with an example of each U.S. Army and Marine Corps insignia within the division on it, to their commanding general, John A. Lejeune. This remarkable variety of patches was sewn to a wool service blanket.” Courtesy, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 1975.917.1. FIG 14 (right). “Swatch” of S&I insignia on wool—“At least three, and perhaps more, types of the Star & Indian Head insignia were embroidered onto wool backings, and then cut out by individuals or tailors, and stitched to one of the differently-colored and shaped backgrounds that represented the various units within the 2d Division, (Regular) A. E. F. Further research is needed to discover where these different insignia were actually manufactured.” Courtesy, National Museum of the Marine Corps, 1984.286.1.

Notes 1. Memo for LTC Herringshaw to Second Supply Train, dated 28 Mar 1919, AEF, AG Insignia File, Second Division, Records of the American Expeditionary Forces (World War I), Record Group (RG) 120, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington. DC, (hereafter RG 120, NARA). 2. Gordon H. Steele, lLT, QMC, “The Origin of the ‘Star and Indian Head,’” The Trail, Camp Travis, Texas, 1, no. 11, 1. 3. Letter from CPT C. O. Mattfeld to MAJ A. M. Jones, dated 30 August 1926, AEF, AG Insignia File, Second Division, RG 120, NARA. 4. Memo from BG El to CO 23d Infantry, dated 6 September 1918, AEF, AG Insignia File, Second Division, RG 120, NARA. 5. Memo from 1LT Oskar E. Youngdahl to CO 23d Infantry, dated 22 September 1918. AEF AG Insignia File, Second Division, RG 120, NARA. 6. AEF AG Insignia File, Second Division, RG 120, NARA. 7. Ibid. 8. Telecon between John L. Stacey and K. Smith-Christmas, March 1980. 9. In the collection of James Nilo, a collector of Marine Corps memorabilia. 10. AEF, AG Insignia File, Second Division, RG 120, NARA. 11. Rare Books Collection, U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center Library, Quantico, VA. 12. Silverthorn Collection, PC 198, National Museum of the Marine Corps, Quantico, VA. 13. Frank E. Evans, LTC, USMC: “Demobilizing the Brigade,” Marine Corps Gazette, 4 (December 1919): 309.

Within a few years after this article was published, several new members joined the Marine Corps Museum staff—Anthony Wayne Tommell, J. Michael Miller, John G. Griffiths, and the late John H. McGarry III—and all of them were members of the Company of Military Historians. Together, and under new direction, they, along with other additional staff members, interns, and volunteers, helped the existing museum staff members computerize, regularize, and recatalog the collections over the next decades. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, it was finally possible to conduct comparative studies involving artifacts, especially in the uniform and insignia collections. The answer to the question, “Who actually made the Star & Indianhead insignia and how were they issued?” was one of the most glaring omissions in the 1982 article. Thankfully, the insignia that were already in the collection in 1982 and all of those insignia acquired since then can now be studied and analyzed to answer those questions— at least in part. The National Museum of the Marine Corps now has examples of nearly all of the insignia worn by the component units of the 4th Brigade, and also has a wide variety of examples that show all the known manufacturing styles. Moreover, all of these insignia have proven provenance from their donors, so the museum’s sampling is free from reproductions, replicas, or fakes, as could possibly be the case with any private collection that depended on acquisitions purchased from dealers or other collectors.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

When the approval to use the Star & Indianhead motif on the variously shaped and colored backgrounds was granted on 6 November 1918, the 2d Division was fully engaged in the final assaults into the Argonne Forest and would just be crossing over the Meuse River at the Armistice on 11 November 1918. It is doubtful whether anyone had the time, inclination, or opportunity, to hand-paint portraits of Indian chiefs on white cloth stars during that time. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume the manufacture of the stars did not commence until the division had completed its grueling march into Germany and had gone into occupation billets in the region around Koblenz. The first stars have hand-painted portraits of Indian chiefs and, while some follow the St. Gauden motif on the five dollar gold piece, there are a variety of styles and colors. This underlines the theory the artists were multiple “soldier artists” involved in the production of the stars— but how many artists and in which units, no one knows for sure. To date, no documentary evidence has yet surfaced that contains phrases such as “being accomplished with an artists’ paint brush, Corporal So-and-So was detailed to paint insignia for the (squad, platoon, company, battalion),” or “ Lieutenant Umptyfratz painted sleeve insignia for the officers’ mess, using the skills he gained from attending art classes at (Yale, Harvard, etc.).” There were numerous skilled artists among the Marine officers, like the famed illustrator John W. Thomason and the cubist Claggett Wilson and from an examination and analysis of the insignia painted on the helmets, there must have been more than a few accomplished artists in the enlisted ranks. Moreover, even local German artists may have painted some of the insignia, in spite of strict nonfraternization policies. At this point, no one really knows. While many researchers have gleaned the personal papers collections in the Marine Corps Archives at Quantico for information on operations in France, few researchers have ever searched the collections for information on material culture. The answers to this question may still be found through further research or may serendipitously become available as a by-product of other research. After the initial use of the hand-painted insignia, embroidered insignia were acquired for general issue to the entire 2d Division. These stars were embroidered on swatches of olive drab wool cloth, in varying shades of olive drab, and obviously in different contracts. They were then cut out and stitched to the appropriate backing material, of the shapes and colors described in the 1982 article. For Marines, aside from those assigned to 2d Division Headquarters (who wore their stars on

Military Collector & Historian

a black shield), they wore a square (for the 5th Marine Regiment), a diamond (for the 6th Marine Regiment), or a horizontal oval (in black for Brigade Headquarters and in purple for the 6th Machine Gun Battalion). For the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments, the system dictated a black background for the headquarters companies, green for the supply companies, and purple for the machine gun companies. The first battalion within the regiment wore red, the second battalion yellow, and the third battalion blue. Purple was worn by all of the companies in the 6th Machine Gun Battalion. Sadly, no information has yet to surface which would indicate where these embroidered stars were acquired or who was detailed to obtain them. The stars, on their swatches of wool cloth, are most likely of French manufacture, but some, or perhaps all of them, could be German. There are at least three distinctive styles: one with plain feathers on the chief’s war bonnet; one with the feathers outlined in blue; and one with blue feathers, but with a different bonnet headband and depiction of the Indian chief’s face. It could be supposed the outlined feathers may be the last issue, as, from a distance, the insignia is more defined with the outlined feathers—a definite improvement. However, this is pure supposition, as all three (or even more) variations simply could have been concurrent manufacturing runs and arranged by different units within the Brigade or the Division. Again, researchers are urged to avail themselves of the opportunity to delve into the document collections at the Marine Corps University’s new Edwin H. Simmons Historical Center (adjacent to the Alfred M. Gray Research Center) at the Marine Corps’ base in Quantico, Virginia, to find the answers to these questions and then share them with the military history community. The authors sincerely hope those manufacturers of replicas who insist on producing unmarked copies that “will even fool the curators” will not use the information offered here to make exact replicas for “living history” enthusiasts and reenactors. This reprehensible practice only confuses the field of material culture and further frustrates the preservation and study of actual artifacts by future generations. Ken Smith-Christmas first joined the Company of Military Historians in 1965 and spent nearly 30 years on the staff of the Marine Corps Museum. Owen Conner joined the Company in 2013 and is now the Curator of Uniforms and Heraldry for the National Museum of the Marine Corps.

v Robert Rucker Charter Member, 1951 Mission Viejo, California

Alfred H. Seibel

Oceanside, New Jersey

v New Members Spring 2018 Sumner G. Hunnewell by Jack & Maggie Grothe Lt. Col. Robert J. Driver, USMC (Ret.) by Edwin W. Besch Errol Steffy by Wally Heimbach Brendan O’Shea via CMH Online Charles Kaufman via CMH Online Wesley Dawson via CMH Online Stephen J. Kent by Sam Small Col. Paul R. Rosewitz, USA (Ret.) by Jack & Maggie Grothe John T. Frawner, Jr via CMH Website Joseph E. Schaeffer by Wally Heimbach Janet Wilzbach by Jack and Maggie Grothe Col. Walter W. Davis, Jr by Randy Baehr Errol Steffy by Wally Heimbach Corey King by Paul Lear Ran Maness reinstated by Sam Small Scott W. Radcliffe by Jack & Maggie Grothe Cisco Lopez by Mark Kasal Sam Barnes reinstated via CMH Online Damon Sumpter by Randel Baehr David Ervin by David M. Sullivan Elizabeth A. Malloy by David M. Sullivan Kenneth Osen reinstated via CMH Online Scott Walter by Kenneth Osen Paul Newman via CMH Online

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

U. S. Army Gold Team Prizes, 1906–1923 Lt. Col. William K. Emerson, USA (Ret.)

he purpose of this article is to provide data and show examples of wearable gold prizes given to Regular Army officers and enlisted men between 1906 and 1923 who were members of various branch teams that participated in the National Rifle Team Matches. The prizes came in four different versions and the Army awarded less than 460 of these gold medals. Given the Army’s many other gold, silver, and bronze prizes in existence during the early twentieth century, why did the Army create the gold team prize? After a quick synopsis of the Army’s competitive shooting program and awards, this article will look at these gold medals and then quickly discuss their follow-on prizes. The U.S. Army had, in 1858, started recognizing the best long arm shooter in a company with the award of a wearable brass stadia and the best regimental marksman with a silver stadia.1 Despite this, the Army did not really push rifle and carbine training until the late 1870s. In 1875, under the leadership of George W. Wingate of the National Guard, State of New York, the state introduced an award that any National Guard member could earn if he obtained a sufficiently high score during the annual rifle firing.2 Soon several other states followed. Very quickly qualification firing where a soldier might earn a badge grew into a military craze. In 1879 Col. T. T. S. Laidley, commander of Watertown Arsenal, published a manual, Course of Instruction in Rifle Firing, which outlined the Regular Army’s approach to marksmanship training. Soon Colonels Laidley and Wingate were heavily involved in charges and counter charges of copyright infringement—an indication of the new nation-wide interest in marksmanship.3 From the late 1870s until after the Spanish American War, most states developed a wide range of marksman buttons that, over time, became very diverse.

FIG 1. A small sample of marksman buttons worn on collars in state units. While the Regular Army stopped wearing marksman buttons in 1897, some National Guard units continued to wear them until just prior to World War I. All images courtesy of the author.

FIG 2. An original bronze marksman bar issued by the Regular Army in 1884 (top). Initially these were given to soldiers who had earned marksman buttons for three years. Below is a silver marksman bar that replaced the bronze version in 1885. In 1897, the bar became the sole marksman insignia for Regular Army soldiers. Courtesy of the author.

Regular Army soldiers also started to wear marksman buttons on their coat collars in 1881 if they qualified during annual firing. Regular Army marksman buttons lasted until 1897.4 Soon the Army added marksman bars, sharpshooter crosses, and after 1903, expert rifleman badges.5 At times expert qualification also entitled a man to extra pay.6 Between 1884 and 1897 the Army also issued to marksmen and sharpshooters, various certificates, most signed by general officers.7 In addition to these badges and certificates, during the 1880s and until 1902, the Army issued over twenty different styles of large, wearable gold, silver, and bronze prizes to soldiers who placed well in division, department, and Army level matches. In 1903, these large prizes were replaced by a wider range of smaller wearable prizes, still issued in gold, silver, and bronze, which were given in annual matches. That same year Congress provided funding to create the National Matches, trophies, and medals. FIG 3. One of the original Regular Army 1884 bronze sharpshooter crosses. Once a man qualified as a marksman, he could then fire an additional long range course in an attempt to qualify as a sharpshooter. In 1885 the silver version became the sharpshooter badge.

Military Collector & Historian

FIG 5. Two examples of the twenty-four prizes awarded in division, department, and Army matches between 1881 and 1902. Cpl. Charles Rie, Troop B, 6th Cavarly won the gold prize in the Division of the Missouri competition held at Fort Leavenworth, September 1897. The Army only awarded nineteen of these prizes. The silver prize was won by Sgt. James G. Harbord, Company A, 4th Infantry in August 1890 at the Division of the Pacific rifle match. Harbord later headed the AEF Services of Supply in France in 1918 then became the Army Deputy Chief of Staff when Pershing became the Army Chief of Staff. The Army only awarded thirty-seven of these prizes.

FIG 4. An 1887 sharpshooter certificate signed by Gen. Nelson Miles. It is 7.6 x 10.1 inches. As qualification requirements changed the Army modified the shooting certificate given to marksmen and sharpshooters, which resulted in several different versions. Certificates and badges helped to make qualification shooting popular with the troops.

The National Matches were open to Regular Army and National Guard soldiers.8 The Marine Corps and Navy could compete but initially not win prizes, but that was soon changed by Congress, followed by a decision civilian teams could compete for National Match prizes.9 In the world of Army marksmanship contests, near the end of each summer divisions held matches with high scoring competitors receiving prize medals. A short time later these winners then vied in department matches. Again, top scorers won prizes and went on to the Armywide match. The top level match further resulted in the award of a small number of additional prizes. After 1903, the War Department simply named some of the Army level competitors that would make up the Armyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s National Match team. The men were left to train on their own. In the early National Matches, National Guard teams beat the U.S. Army. In the 1904 National Match, New York won. The U.S. Navy placed second followed by the infantry and then the cavalry.10 The next year was no better. New

FIG 6. Examples of silver and bronze prizes awarded by the Army between 1903 and 1916. In some cases the name of the division or department appeared on the suspending brooch while in other years DIVISION and DEPARTMENT were used.

York won again, infantry placed second, Ohio National Guard third, the Marines fourth, while the cavalry slipped to 11th as other teams improved.11 It was too much for the War Department. Finally, in a desperate attempt to win the National Match, in 1906 the Army had the top 15 cavalry and the top 15 infantry shooters not fire in the division and Army level matches. This edict was so the two Army teams would train exclusively for the National Match.12 One root of the dilemma was the Armyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s organizational structure. Generally during the latter part of the nineteenth century, the military divided the nation into approximately a half-dozen geographic divisions. The

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

National Match bronze prizes. This left no way for a soldier to show he had been a National Match competitor. To correct this situation, in 1919 the Army introduced the two new gold team prizes—for Infantry Team and Cavalry FIG 7. Typical gold prizes won between 1903 and 1916 in division, Team members. These were for any soldier who “since department, and Army matches. Kerwin T. Smith, 6th Infantry, won and including 1906, shall have won a place as a principal these three medals. Left to right: First place award for the Army’s 1907 match; first place award in the Army’s 1908 match; and first or alternate on the Infantry or Cavalry rifle teams selected to represent the Army in the national matches.” Each place award for the Northern Division 1907 match. man had to apply by letter to the Adjutant General for names and the number of divisions varied over time. The their gold badge. These badges were to count as one of next higher headquarters were three departments that the three awards necessary for distinguished marksman.14 funneled paperwork to and from the Army’s headquarters The new 14-karat prizes had planchets 1¼ inches in and supervised the divisions. With the Spanish-American diameter bearing a white and black enamel target centered War and the Philippine Insurrection this peacetime over crossed rifles. Around the edge was a laurel wreath structure proved not very adaptable. New divisions and departments came and went rapidly. These frequent changes caused annual division and department matches to be held on an irregular basis. Some divisions only lasted long enough to hold a single match. To correct this problem, rather than select by division and department, in early 1906 the Military Secretary’s Office picked the 15 infantry and 15 cavalry shooters for the National Match. Team members were directed to train exclusively for the National Match. This required training prevented team members from shooting in division, department, and Army competitions. (At this time a team consisted of 12 firers, a coach, and 2 alternates.) Marksmen selected for one of the two National Match teams could FIG 9. Cavalry and infantry medals for National Match team not win any prizes at the three contests fired prior to the awardees between 1906 and 1923. National Match. The fly in the ointment was a man had to win three prizes to become a distinguished marksman, with “U.S.” in the wreath’s top opening. Brooches that but the National Match competitors could not win prizes suspended the planches were 1½ inches long and 3/10 inches wide. at any lower level since they could not compete.13 The reverse was engraved with the soldier’s name, rank, Until 1919, National Match prizes were simple bronze unit, and the year the person served on the national team, shields as shown in FIG 8. After World War I, the Army although as will be seen, the details of the engraving tightened uniform regulations. Excluded from wear were were not always consistent. Of the 1906–1919 badges examined, the author has noted use of the same engraving style. My presumption is these badges were engraved during the latter part of 1919 or early 1920, which would be consistent with the retroactive 1919 authorization. FIG 8. Until 1919 all National Match One example of the engraving on a 1908 prize is in FIG 10. medals were bronze and of this general design. The inscription appearing at It shows the reverse of a gold Army Cavalry Team Medal the bottom of the shield denoted the engraved in lines that run across the medal, with slanted place represented by the medal—in flowing script, “George M./Russell/1st Lieutenant/15th this case the awardee was a member of the 2d place rifle team in the 1909 Cavalry/1908.” Lieutenant Russell attended the U.S. Military Academy, received a cavalry commission in 1901, match. and became a captain in 1916. In August 1917 he received a temporary commission as a field artillery major and became a lieutenant colonel in May 1918. He returned to Regular Army service as a major in 1920. Russell became a Regular Army lieutenant colonel in 1923 after receiving

Military Collector & Historian

FIG 10

FIG 11

FIG 12

FIG 13

a Distinguished Service Medal for his wartime work. The Army promoted him to colonel in May 1931 and he died in Washington, D.C., on 17 August 1938.15 Despite World War I, in 1918 the Army took time and resources to field a rifle team. FIG 11 depicts the reverse of an Army Infantry Team Medal engraved in the same flowing script just seen, “Ralph W. Jacobi/2nd Lieutenant/3rd Infantry/1918.” Jacobi was a farmer from rural South Dakota who received a commission for the world war and by 1920 had been discharged.16 Both the Russell and Jacobi prizes have examples of engraving consistent with the theory the 1906–1919 badges were engraved right after the creation on these new prizes. Examination of a 1920 Army Infantry Team Medal shows a significantly different engraving style. The reverse of Capt. Lewis Walters’ badge is shown in FIG 12. The lines run at an angle of about twenty degrees, left to right, the letters in each word being all upper case but with the first letters in a larger size than the subsequent letters. As the letters are larger, infantry is abbreviated so essential data could fit within the wreath. “LEWIS/D./WALTERS/ CAPTAIN/32ND INF./1920.” Prizes from the following year returned to the neat cursive script used on prizes of 1919 and before. FIG 13 shows the soldier’s name on two lines, “Thomas/E. Veicci” with the third line abbreviation his rank and his company, “1st Sgt. Co. ‘E’” while the last two lines show his regiment and the competition year. The 35th Infantry was one of the regiments constituted in 1916. It saw no service in World War I as it was assigned to the 18th Division that stayed in Texas.17 In 1920, the coast artillery started to send a team to the national matches. Accordingly, that year a third badge appeared. The planchet was identical but the brooch carried ARTILLERY. Why the Army chose that wording rather than COAST ARTILLERY is lost to history but a review of the national match results for various years clearly lists the Coast Artillery Corps team.18 FIG 10. Reverse of the cavalry team medal awarded to George Russell. Most medals display this slanted script engraving with the name appearing on the first top one or two lines depending upon the length of the awardee’s name, followed by his rank, unit, and the year of competition. FIG 11. Reverse of the infantry team medal awarded to Ralph M. Jacobi for his participation in the 1918 match. This badge serves as an example of a team award with the name appearing in a single line. FIG 12. Badges for 1920 are the only awards that appear with a different style of engraving. This example was awarded to Capt. Lewis Walters, 32d Infantry. The inscription is slanted at an increasing angle, left to right. All lettering is in upper case, the first letters are larger than the letters that follow. “CAPTAIN” is written out, but INFANTRY is abbreviated as “INF.” FIG 13. First Sergeant Vereer’s 1921 infantry prize. It was engraved in the script used in years prior to and following 1920.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

FIG 14. An example of a 1920 gold team prize with ARTILLERY brooch. Despite the name, these were for the coast artillery team as the field artillery did not send a rifle team in the early 1920s.

Another 1920 prize, given the first year the Army authorized artillery prizes, is one given to 1st Sgt. Louis Razga. He was born in Hungary, 14 August 1887, initially enlisted in 1908 for the coast artillery, and retired 25 July 1935 as master sergeant. In France with the AEF he was wounded and worked at Pershing’s headquarters. Two of Razga’s awards survive, including his gold artillery team prize, shown in FIG 15. It is engraved, “LOUIS/RAZGA/1ST SERGT./BATTERY C/52ND ARTILLERY/C. A. C. 1920.” The artillery team placed tenth overall and Razga tied for third within the team with a score of 275.19 First Sgt. Louis Razga was a pall bearer for the Unknown Soldier, November 1921. Among his papers are an original pass to, “Memorial Ceremonies for an Unknown American” on capital grounds for 11 November 1921, a pass for Razga while he was in France and was in 58th Artillery, his warrant as a sergeant in the 4th Coast Artillery Corps Company dated 1917, a warrant as first sergeant dated 1924 in the 52d Coast Artillery (Railway), Razga’s retirement certificate signed by the acting adjutant general, and his pass to the internment ceremony for the Unknown Soldier. A photo of Razga taken between 1921 and 1924 is in FIG 16. His other surviving Regular Army medal is his Purple Heart, number 851, which shows it was one of the very early medals issued in 1932. It is engraved on the reverse, “LOUIS RAZGA” and is shown in FIG 17. Razga died 8 February 1959 and was buried in Longwood Cemetery, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania. At least one man won three of the gold team prizes: James T. Campbell.

FIG 15. Sergeant Razga’s 1920 prize is engraved in the same style as that used for Captain Walters (FIG 12).

FIG 17. Obverse and reverse of Sergeant Razga’s Purple Heart that is numbered 851.

FIG 16. First Sgt. Louis Razga, a pall bearer for the Unknown Soldier, November 1921, wearing his shooting awards including his 1920 artillery team prize.

Military Collector & Historian

Campbell graduated from Plattsburg Barracks Training School in 1917 and received a lieutenant’s commission. He served in France as a member of the 33d Division. Between 1921 and 1923 he became a competitive marksman and was a member of the coast artillery team. The unit to which he belonged in the Panama Canal Zone during this time was constituted as the 4th Coast Artillery Regiment in 1924. During World War II, Campbell commanded the 118th AAA Group during the Battle of the Bulge. He retired as colonel in 1946. His first two prizes were of the type with ARTILLERY on the brooch. This was despite the fact the field artillery did not have a rifle team (its primary individual arm was the pistol while the coast artillery had the rifle as its primary small arm for most units).20 The reverse of Campbell’s 1921 prize is shown in FIG 18. It is script engraved, “James T. Campbell/ Captain/C. A. C./1921.” The reverse of his second prize is in FIG 19, engraved, “James T. Campbell/Captain/Coast Arty Corps/1922.” Beside the year, the only difference is in the way his branch is shown: “C.A.C.” versus “Coast Arty. Corps.” In 1923, Campbell received his third gold team badge, but by this time new dies had been made. Campbell’s overall design was similar to the earlier prizes with the most obvious change on the brooch with COAST ARTILLERY (FIG 20). Why the Army struck a totally new planchet and brooch whose lines were not as fine as the initial striking is unknown. The details of the coast artillery prize are not as crisp as

FIG 18

FIG 19

with all of the other prizes. The diesinker obviously spent less time on the artistic details. The wreath has significantly less detail, as do the crossed rifles. The enameled target is slightly smaller, while the “U.S.” letters above the target are noticeably thicker and larger. The reverse of Campbell’s 1923 prize struck from the new die is shown in FIG 21. While the overall design is the same with a laurel wreath near the edge, the wreath has more depth than all of the other team prizes. It is engraved slightly differently than his other two prizes, “Captain/ James T. Campbell/Coast Artillery/1923.” Of the gold prizes I have examined, this is the only case where a rank comes first. In addition his branch is “Coast Artillery,” still a different way of listing his arm of service. It is interesting to note all three of Campbell’s medals have the engraving in slightly different styles. Initially 18 men comprised a team: 12 firers, 3 alternates, 1 coach, 1 team captain, and 1 spotter.21 The next year the cavalry team had 18 members, as before, although 3 were from the Corps of Engineers. Capt. Malin Craig, 1st Cavalry, and later Chief of Staff of the Army, was the coach. The infantry had seventeen members including one from the coast artillery. The coach was one of the firers, in an unusual move.22 By 1908 regulations were simply calling for twelve-man teams, although the regulations still allowed for two alternates, a coach, a captain, and a spotter. Twelve-man teams continued into 1916.23 In 1914, the Army, for just that year, changed the manner the National Matches were held. To encourage more National Guard teams to participate, a set of four matches were held around the nation. Teams traveled to the sites closest to their home base in an effort to have more state teams fire. With dispersed firing, the Army initially planned to send a team to each of the firing locations, but in the end, the Army for once, did not send a cavalry

FIG 20

FIG 18. The engraved reverse of James Campbell’s artillery team medal for 1921. FIG 19. Campbell’s 1922 artillery team medal. The award was engraved “Coast Arty. Corps.” rather than “C.A.C.” FIG 20. One of the prizes made for 1923 whose top bar engraved “COAST ARTILLERY” rather than simply “ARTILLERY.” In addition to the brooch the Army fabricated a new die for the 1¼-inch planchets. Although the design had not changed, the new version was not as distinct in appearance as with those produced prior to 1923.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

FIG 21. The coast artillery team prize of 1923 awarded to James Campbell. His “unit” received a medal containing yet another change in its wording—in this case “Coast Artillery.”

Table 1. Maximum Possible Gold Team Medals

or infantry team. This resulted in no gold team medals being awarded that year. National Matches were held in 1916, but because of problems on the Mexican border, the Army decided not to send any teams. With the entry of the U.S. into World War I, the Army suspended the national matches for 1917.25 The next year, however, the infantry participated by sending one team as witnessed by Lieutenant Jacobi’s prize (FIG 11). The Army placed 17th.. For once the Navy sent 12 teams, the Marines sent 2, while the cavalry had 1 that placed 7th.26 Teams continued to consist of 12 firers from 1918 to 1920, then with the 1921 match, teams were reduced to 10 members. Ten-man teams remained through 1923 when use of the gold team medals ended.27 Complicating counting of possible medals was a change of rules regarding the number of Army teams that could fire. Through 1915 the Army entered two teams: infantry and cavalry.28 The 1916 regulations allowed three teams by adding one for the coast artillery, although as noted, the Regular Army sent no teams.29 National Match regulations of 1918 and later allowed the Army to send “one or more” teams.30 In 1920, the Army’s infantry team won. For the first time a team from the Philippine Scouts placed 5th, the cavalry placing 7th and in its first match, the coast artillery came in 10th. There was no special gold medal for the Philippine Scout team in which each firer was an NCO, although each man did receive another medal.31 If one considers the annual firers and two alternates could have received medals, Table I summarizes the possible gold team medals. Since infantry and cavalry teams were eligible for the gold prizes throughout their life, they are the most common, although at most 206 of each were awarded. Badges with artillery brooches are considerably scarcer since they were available for only three years, but the coast artillery version had only a dozen awarded. How many of these gold team medals did the Army issue? Since the Army required shooters write in and request one of the prizes, it is hard to tell. Most firers certainly asked for their gold badges. 24

Title on Brooch

Years Team Fired

Possible Medals

Infantry

1906–13, 1915, 1918–20, 1921–23*

206

Cavalry

1906–13, 1915, 1918–20, 1921–23*

206

Artillery

1920, 1921–22*

Coast Artillery

1923*

* Starting in 1921 teams were of 10 men with two alternates. Earlier teams had 12 men and two alternates except 1906 had three alternates.

In September 1922, the Quartermaster Corps announced a new set of prizes to replace the division, department, and Army prizes introduced since 1903.32 These 1903 and subsequent badges had undergone various modifications, including changes in sizes, introduction of many new brooches impressed with division and department names and other notations including AEF that was used in the Army’s largest shooting contest, which was held near LeMans, France, in May 1919.33 The 1922 style badges were comprised of three parts. For National and Army matches the top bronze rectangular brooch displayed oak leaves. For lower matches, held at department and corps areas, the brooch was a thin bronze bar with a center disk showing either the corps area number or a department symbol. Below a brooch was one of three clasps that depicted crossed weapons: pistols, rifles, or automatic rifles. All clasps were bronze for national and Army matches, while for lower matches the top one-sixth of prize winners received gold clasps, the next one-third had silver clasps, and the bottom half had bronze clasps.34 Planchets of the 1922 design featured a bow and two arrows, surrounded by thirteen stars, which in turn had a laurel wreath around the edge. Corps area and department planchets were all bronze, while those given at Army and national matches had the ring of stars enameled in branch color(s).35 In 1924 match regulations changed so “each of the (Army) branches” could have a team at the national matches. Rather than continue to issue the gold team prizes, the 1922 pattern prizes now allowed the Army to use the bronze and enamel awards in their place at a considerably reduced cost.36 This spelled the end of the short-lived gold team prizes. Various matches had been held in 1916 and later, and at times the Army did not provide 1903-type prizes. With the adoption of the 1922 prizes the Army retroactively awarded the new bronze badges for these matches.37 One example is in FIG 22. Notes

Military Collector & Historian

FIG 22. A 1922 style National Match named prize to an officer in the Philippine Scouts that was awarded retroactively. National match prizes contained enameled stars and ring—in this case dark blue with red stars for the Philippine Scouts. Weapons clasps for Army and national matches were always struck in bronze. It appears with, “1st Lieut./Frank Christian/Inf. P.S./1921” engraved in script. Christian served as an enlisted man in the 6th Infantry between 1911 and 1914, and subsequently in the National Army’s 151st Depot Brigade in 1918. He received a commission in the Philippine Scouts in August 1918.

FIG 23. Corps area prizes struck in 1922 contained a top bar engraved with either the corps area number or a design intended specifically for the Canal Zone, Hawaii, or Philippine departments. Weapons clasps were made of gold, silver, or bronze to depict placement in the match while the ring of thirteen stars on the planchets was always composed of bronze without any enamel. 1. War Department (WD), Annual Report, Secretary of War, 1860 (Washington: GPO, 1860), 984. 2. George W. Wingate, Manual for Rifle Practice, 6th ed. (New York: Army and Navy Journal, 1878), ii; George W. Wingate, Manual for Rifle Practice, 5th ed. (New York: Army and Navy Journal, 1875), 144. 3. T. T. S. Ladley, Colonel Laidley’s Reply to the Charge of

Infringement of Colonel Wingate’s Copyright (Boston: Mills, Knight & Co., 1879). 4. WD, Annual Report, Chief of Ordnance, 1881 (Washington: GPO, 1881), 31; WD, Adjutant General’s Office (AGO), General Orders (GO) 36, paras 500c and 510. 5. WD, Annual Report, Chief of Ordnance, 1885 (Washington: GPO, 1885), 626–29; WD, Firing Regulations for Small Arms for the United States and the Organized Militia of the United States, 1904 (Washington: GPO, 1904). 6. Headquarters of the Army (HQA), AGO, GO 24, 1903, 5. 7. HQA, AGO, WD Circular 6, 1884; HQA, AGO, GO 12, 1884; WD, AGO, GO 36, 1897, para 500h. Examination of various certificates by the author. 8. WD, Annual Report, Secretary of War, 1903 (Washington: GPO, 1903), 423. 9. WD, GO, 76, 1904, 36. 10. WD, GO 172, 1904, 2. 11. WD, GO 104, 1905, 20. 12. File #1632150, Records of the Old Records Division, Records of the Adjutant General, 1780s–1917, Record Group (RG) 94, National Archives, Washington DC (NA); File # 1204992, Military Secretary’s Office (box 3244), RG 94, NA; WD, GO 44, 1907. 13. Ibid. 14. WD, Bul. 29, 1919, sect III; WD, Bul 39, 1919, sect III. 15. AGO, Official Army Register 1934 (Washington: GPO, 1934), 596; Association of Graduates, USMA, Register of Graduates (Chicago: R. E. Donnelley & Sons, 1980), 290. 16. U.S. Census, 1930, Buffalo Township, Harding County, SD, district 0001, sheet 2. 1920 census for Harding County, SD. 17. The Army Lineage Book: Vol II: Infantry (Washington, DC: GPO, 1953), 163. 18. WD, Bul. 1, 1922, 2. 19. WD, Bul. 41, 1920, Tables I and XI. 20. Willard W. Irvine, “The Policy of the Coast Artillery on Small Arms Equipment and Training,” Coast Artillery Journal (May 1926): 459; WD, Provisional Drill and Service Regulations for Field Artillery (Horse and Light), 1916 (Washington: GPO, 1917), para 28. 21. WD, GO 56, 1906, 3. 22. WD GO 162, 1907, 1–2. 23. WD, GO 26, 1908, 1–3. WD; Buls 6 and 37, 1916. 24. WD, Bul. 11, 1914, para 4; Bul. 36, 1914, para. 1; Bul. 51, 1914, Sect. III. 25. WD, Bul. 14, 1916, Sect. IV. WD; Bul 29, 1917, Sect V. 26. WD, Bul. 17, 1919, 2. 27. WD, Bul. 6, 1920, para. 3 and WD Bul. 4, 1921, para 3; WD Bul. 10, 1923, para. 3. 28. WD, Bul. 10, 1915, para. 6a. 29. WD, Bul. 8, 1916, para. 4a. 30. WD, Bul .18, 1919, para. 3a; WD, Bul 6, 1920, para. 3a. 31. WD, Bul. 41, 1920, Tables I and VI. 32. WD, Changes 5 to AR 600–35, September 1922, para. 39d. 33. GHQ AEF, Bul. 7, 1919; GHQ AEF, Bul. 29, 1919. 34. WD, Changes 5 to AR 600–35, September 1922, para. 39d. 35. Ibid.; WD, Office of Quartermaster General drawing 4-4-16, April 18, 1923. 36. WD, Bul. 7, 1924, para. 3. 37. Observations of many prizes by author over 20 years.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians The Sailmakers Detachment: Italian American Tailors in the Air Service in World War I

Maj. Peter L. Belmonte, USAF (Ret.)

orld War I was the first major war in which the fledgling U.S. Army Air Service (USAS) was engaged. By the war’s end, the Air Service was using many different types of fixed-wing aircraft and balloons in the European theater. The development of this new service required not only the rapid acquisition of many different types of aircraft, but also the equally rapid expansion of manpower to operate and maintain those aircraft. The Air Service needed men with new skills: airplane engine and propeller mechanics, airframe experts, avionics maintenance men, armorers and bomb loaders, and radio telegraph technicians. But there was another, much older, occupation whose skill set was vitally needed by the Service. The aircraft of that long-ago era were built of fabric-covered wooden frames. That fabric, integral to the airworthiness of each aircraft, required skilled workmen to install and maintain. In addition to the skin of the aircraft, fabric was also used for aerial tow targets, machine gun ammunition belts, and various types of web equipment. Balloon companies, too, used a great deal of fabric. In addition to the gasbags themselves, parachutes for the balloons’ crewmen, the observers, also were made

of fabric that often required repair. The Air Service found men with the skills needed to maintain all this fabric among those who plied the trades involved with needle and thread. Key among these were, of course, tailors.1 An unknown number of tailors served in the U.S. military during the war. The U.S. Navy specifically recruited tailors, often waiving physical requirements to induce tailors to enlist. These Navy tailors were enlisted at a higher rank and pay than basic seamen enlistees; many were recruited as firemen first class. Their duties involved making, altering, and repairing the thousands of uniforms and pieces of cloth equipment required by the rapidly growing Navy.2 Other tailors were, of course, drafted into the Army; most, no doubt, simply served wherever they were sent, in whatever capacity the Army desired. Perhaps some of them performed informal tailor duties for their unit. But other tailors were specifically assigned duties within the Air Service. A group of these men sailed for the European theater as part of the “Sailmakers Detachment, Air Service.” The detachment left from Hoboken, New Jersey, aboard the Missanabie on 15 August 1918 (FIG 1).3 Two Air Service

FIG 1. Detail of a page of the manifest for the Missanabie, showing members of the Sailmakers Detachment, Air Service. Ancestry.com.

Table A.

Military Collector & Historian

officers led the detachment and accompanied the men— 1st Lt. Norman B. Read and 2d Lt. Harold M. Prescott. The men were bound for assignment to the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) that had Air Service squadrons in England, France, and Italy. An examination of this detachment in general, and the Italian-American tailors within it, provides us with a glimpse into a littlestudied aspect of the war that impacts military, social, and immigration history. It provides more pieces of the mosaic that is the picture of the U.S. military during the Great War. The names of two officers and 204 enlisted men of the Sailmakers Detachment appear on the manifest. Of these, five enlisted men, including two Italian-born tailors, were transferred out of the detachment on 13 August. It’s not clear whether these men ever boarded the vessel, but their names are lined off the manifest and a notation indicating that they were transferred to the Casual Battalion (per Special Orders 219, paragraph 6, Personnel Adjutant) written in. Probably these men were ill and unable to make the voyage, or they were found otherwise ineligible for sailing at the last minute. Of the remaining 199 enlisted men, forty-one, or 20 percent, were born in Italy or born in the United States of Italian parents. The surnames of the other men point to a variety of national origins; spot examinations of some of these men revealed the fact that many of them were, like almost all of the Italian-Americans, tailors. A cursory examination of naturalization records from Camp Sevier, South Carolina, where many men from this detachment were based in May-June 1918, reveals that other foreign-born men hailed from places like Russia and Russian-Poland, Turkish Armenia, Scotland, Sweden, and other places. The nativity and occupation of each man examined is based upon his draft registration card, if found. Other supporting documents are military service records from New York State, Ohio, and select other states. Examining each of the forty-one Italian-Americans, we can find data that sheds some light on this cohort of men. Their age range is what one would expect of men in the service at this time, although there are more men in their early thirties than one would normally expect if this had been a sample of, say, infantrymen. This is probably because the men were experienced tailors and some of them were established in business. Table A gives the birth year for each man.

Year of Birth

Number of Men

1886

1887

1888

1889

1890

1891

1892

1893

1894

1895

1896

Thirty-nine of the men were born in Italy and two were born in the U.S. of Italian parents. The Italian-born men came from a variety of provinces mostly in south or central Italy: Campobasso, Caserta, Cosenza, Foggia, Potenza, Salerno, Sicily, and others. Beginning in the 1870s, all of these provinces supplied immigrants to the United States, with the heaviest period, especially from the Southern Italian provinces, in the thirty years before World War I. Table B shows the year of entry for thirty of the men for whom this information could be found.4 Table B. 1890s: 1

1903: 1

1910: 3

1894: 1

1904: 2

1911: 3

1900: 1

1906: 2

1912: 6

1901: 1

1907: 3

1913: 2

1902: 2

1909: 1

1914: 1

At the time of their entry into the Army, the men lived in a variety of places. Since many immigrants in the 1890s and early 1900s settled in New York City and other large cities in the East and Midwest, it’s not surprising that a majority of the men—twenty-two of them—lived and worked in New York City. Other Northeast and East locations include New Jersey (two men) and, with one man each, New Haven, Connecticut, and Norfolk and Petersburg, Virginia. The Midwest is represented by Ohio (3 from Cleveland, 2 from Cincinnati, and 1 from Ravenna) and, with one man each, Chicago, St. Louis, La Porte, Indiana, and Leon, Iowa. One man from Memphis represented the South, while Seattle (two men) and Grand Junction, Colorado, represented the West. The tailoring occupation contained many different subsets. There were men who specialized as cutters, for example. Most of the men in the detachment were listed simply as “tailor,” but there were a few exceptions. Other tailoring specialties listed include—tailor’s presser, machine operator for a tailoring firm, clothing salesman, dressmaker, and designer. At least nine of the men owned

their own tailor shop, while others worked for someone else or for a tailoring company. Only two of the forty-one men appear not to have been involved with tailoring—one was a clerk at a biscuit company, and the other owned a grocery store. One other man was unemployed. Of the 39 Italian-born men, four were naturalized U.S. citizens upon entry into the Army, and sixteen had declared their intention to become citizens. Another fifteen remained aliens, and the status of four others was unclear. By the rules of the day, the Selective Service allowed alien citizens of allied nations to request exemption from the draft. Of the forty-one men (aliens, declarants, naturalized, and U.S.-born), five requested exemption from the draft. Of the fifteen aliens, only two requested exemption from the draft. Only one man requested exemption because he was not a citizen. Other reasons included support of family members (typically parents and/or siblings); one man claimed exemption because his brother was serving in the U.S. Army at the time. Of the thirty-eight men for whom marital status could be determined, none were married. At least three men had served in the Italian military prior to coming to the U.S.—one man served as a corporal in the Italian cavalry, while two others were privates in the Italian infantry. One man had served for seven years in the 1st Illinois Infantry Regiment, Illinois National Guard; he had also served with the unit on the Mexican border in 1916.5 Partial military service data is available for some of the men, most notably those who entered service from New York State or Ohio. Beyond their service in the Sailmakers Detachment, there are other similarities in the military records of these men. Most appear to have entered the Army sometime in the spring or summer of 1918 and then sent to Camp Sevier, South Carolina, for initial training. Table C shows the month and year for the induction for thirty-seven of the men.6

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

witnesses were almost always fellow soldiers or even officers in their unit. Of the thirty-one men who were aliens or declarants, at least eleven took advantage of the new law to become naturalized U.S. citizens while at Camp Sevier. One other man started proceedings, but his certificate bears the large, handwritten notation: “Void.” Most of these naturalizations occurred in May or June 1918 while the men were part of Detachment 9, Air Service, at Camp Sevier.7 At some point, the men were assembled into the Sailmakers Detachment at Camp Mills, listed in many records as Garden City, Long Island, New York. From there, the detachment sailed for England on 15 August. Upon arrival in England, the men moved to Wendover in Buckinghamshire. Many of the men were transferred to the 1107th Aero Squadron, one of the several Air Service replacement squadrons in the AEF (FIGs 2, 3, 4). From that unit, men were transferred to a variety of USAS units in England or France. From the dates given on the limited number of service records available, it appears most of the men were sent to other units sometime in November 1918. The squadrons were service or repair squadrons in England or France. It’s not known precisely what duties these men performed in the repair and service squadrons for this brief period of time. Table D enumerates the squadrons that received men in this study.8 Table D. Aero Squadron, Type

Number of Men

177 (Service)

224 (Service)

225 (Service)

226 (Service)

Number of Men

282 (Service)

December 1917

308 (Service)

March 1918

309 (Service)

April 1918

812 (Repair)

May 1918

827 (Repair)

June 1918

831 (Repair)

833 (Repair)

837 (Repair)

1107 (Replacement)

1st Sailmakers Draft

Table C. Month and Year of Induction

In May 1918, Congress passed a law waiving residency requirements for alien servicemen who wanted to become United States citizens. No longer would they have to appear in a court and file a Declaration of Intention and reside in the United States five years before taking the oath of allegiance. Now a serviceman was required to have two witnesses who could attest to the man’s loyalty and a certificate of naturalization would be issued. When servicemen took advantage of this opportunity it was usually in civilian courts near military bases and the

Almost all of the men departed from England or France in late November 1918; they arrived in New York in early December and were discharged shortly thereafter. Twenty-one of the men sailed home together aboard the Lapland, leaving from Liverpool, England, as part of the

Military Collector & Historian

FIG 3. Detail of service data for Eugenio Caruso. Ancestry.com.

FIG 2. New York military service abstract for Hugo Gemignani. Ancestry.com.

“1st Sailmakers Draft” in late November (FIG 5). This “draft” was lead by 1st Lt. Thomas Franklin Randle and consisted of one hundred men, most of whom appear to have been part of the original Sailmakers Detachment. Table E shows the month and year of discharge for thirtyseven of the men.9 Table E.

FIG 4. Front and back of the Application for Headstone or Marker for Valentine Liberatore. Note the numerous corrections and amendments necessary before the correct information was obtained. Ancestry.com.

Month and Year of Discharge

Number of Men

December 1918

January 1919

July 1919

As far as is known, this group is the only “Sailmakers Detachment” that existed in the USAS during World War I. From the evidence gathered here, it appears most of the men served a comparatively brief stint as soldiertailors. This article is based upon the author’s research into Italian-American service members during the Great War; obviously there were many other men of various nationalities and backgrounds in this detachment and they, too, are worth studying. Likewise, the work of these men in general is an interesting and little known aspect of the USAS during World War I. Further research in unit records will, it is hoped, yield a more complete picture of the work of tailors in the USAS during World War I. Table F contains the names and serial numbers of all the Italian-American men in the detachment; those marked with an asterisk are the men who were lined off

the original manifest. A comparison of serial numbers will show many men in the 697xxx and 1338xxx number range; this indicates many of the men appeared at camp together in the same drafts.10 Table F. Luigi Abbate 697524

Valentine Liberatore 1338996

James J. Barisonzi* 449893

Biagio Mancini 697502

Ferrucci Boldi 697530

Nicholas Merlo 697510

Vernon B. Brignardello 764750

Andrew Morelli 1338910

Guiseppi Buono 697536

Ralph Morelli 697516

Frank Carcifero 1338920 (unclear)

Giovanni Perrucci 697513

Eugeneo Caruso 1338782

Prosperio Petrocelli 697512 (unclear)

Thomas P. Cifaldi 1338896

Alexander Pietrantonio 1338921

Joseph E. Cipolla 1339258

Phillip Purrazzo 697520 (unclear)

Salvatore De Bella 558613 (unclear)

Romola Romano 697517

Antonio De Florio 1338890

Nicola Ruffo 697550

Oreste De Joseph 697506

Gabriel Ruggieri 1338961

Frank De Maske 697515

Joseph M. Sandone 1338912

Raffael Del Piano 2336291 (unclear)

Nicholas V. Santarelli 1182317

Guiseppe Di Marco 697509

Bartolomeo Santucci 1338952

Peter Fracassi* 1338911

Louis Sardelli 697503

Hugo Gemignani 1336235

Angelo Sepe 697521

Antonio Giangrossi 697514

Martin Sigillito 1339237

Antony Godale 1338968

Frank Turano 1338885

John A. Greguoli 697511

George Venditti 1183018 (unclear)

Tony Iannello 2970155

Umil Vuono 697531

Joseph Infante 1338904

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

SOURCES The raw data this article is based on comes from the following online sources, all accessed between 15 and 23 July 2017: For Army Transport passenger lists: Ancestry.com. U.S., Army Transport Service, Passenger Lists, 1910–1939 [database online]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2016. Original data: Lists of Incoming Passengers, 1917–1938. Textual records. 360 Boxes. NAI: 6234465. Records of the Office of the Quartermaster General, 1774–1985, Record Group 92. The National Archives at College Park, Maryland. Lists of Outgoing Passengers, 1917–1938. Textual records. 255 Boxes. NAI: 6234477, Records of the Office of the Quartermaster General, 1774–1985, Record Group 92. The National Archives at College Park, Maryland. For BIRLS Death File information, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: Ancestry.com. U.S., Department of Veterans Affairs BIRLS Death File, 1850–2010 [database online]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. Original data: Beneficiary Identification Records Locator Subsystem (BIRLS) Death File. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs). For Camp Sevier, South Carolina, naturalizations: The National Archives at Atlanta; Morrow, Georgia, USA; 2217062; Record Group Title: Records of District Courts of the United States; Record Group Number: 21. Ancestry.com. South Carolina, Naturalization Records, 1868–1991 [database online]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry. com Operations, Inc., 2013. Original data: South Carolina Naturalization Records, 1868–1991. Records of District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21; The National Archives at Atlanta, Georgia. For Draft Registrations: Ancestry.com. U.S., World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917–1918 [database online]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005. Original data: United States, Selective Service System. World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917–1918. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. M1509, 4,582 rolls. Imaged from Family History Library microfilm. For Headstone Applications for Military Veterans: Ancestry.com. U.S., Headstone Applications for Military

Military Collector & Historian

FIG 5. Detail of a page of the manifest for the vessel carrying the 1st Sailmakers Draft back to the United States, November 1918. Ancestry.com.

Veterans, 1925–1963 [database online]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012. Original data: Applications for Headstones for U.S. Military Veterans, 1925–1941. Microfilm publication M1916, 134 rolls. ARC ID: 596118. Records of the Office of the Quartermaster General, Record Group 92. National Archives at Washington, D.C. Applications for Headstones, compiled 01/01/1925– 06/30/1970, documenting the period ca. 1776 –1970 ARC: 596118. Records of the Office of the Quartermaster General, 1774–1985, Record Group 92. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C.

Original data: New York State Abstracts of World War I Military Service, 1917–1919, Adjutant General’s Office. Series B0808. New York State Archives, Albany, New York. For Ohio World War I service records: Ancestry.com. Ohio Soldiers in WWI, 1917– 1918 [database online]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2005. Original data: The Official Roster of Ohio Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines in the World War, 1917–18 (Columbus, OH: The F. J. Heer Printing Co., 1926).

For Passport Applications: Ancestry.com. U.S. Passport Applications, 1795– For Missouri World War I service records: 1925 [database online]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com https://s1.sos.mo.gov/records/archives/archivesdb/ Operations, Inc., 2007. soldiers/ Original data: Selected Passports. National Archives, For New York State World War I service records: Washington, D.C. Ancestry.com. New York, Abstracts of World War I Military Service, 1917–1919 [database online]. Provo, UT, For U.S. Army Air Service squadrons and general information: USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2013. Center for Military History, United States Army. Order

of Battle of the United States Land Forces in the World War, Zone of the Interior: Directory of Troops. Vol. 3, Part 3. Washington, D.C.: 1988. See Hathitrust.org (accessed 27 July 2017). Mauer, Mauer. The U.S. Air Service in World War I. Volume II. Washington, DC: GPO, 1978. See https:// media.defense.gov/mwg-internal/de5fs23hu73ds/pr ogress?id=feBtzAPuwIszADWbwuIYu2xqJyQJR0qLQvblce8JGU, (accessed 27 July 2017). Peter L. Belmonte is a retired U.S. Air Force officer, author, and historian. A veteran of Operation Desert Storm, he holds a master’s degree in history from California State University, Stanislaus. He has published articles, book chapters, reviews, and papers about immigration and military history. Belmonte has written four books: Italian Americans in World War II (2001); Days of Perfect Hell: The U.S. 26th Infantry Regiment in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, October-November, 1918 (2015); Calabrian-Americans in the U.S. Military During World War I (2017); and America’s Immigrant Doughboys: The Forgotten Soldiers, 1916–1918 (with Alexander F. Barnes, forthcoming). Notes 1. To avoid excessive, repetitive footnotes, the author has included a complete list of the online sources used for the raw data for this article; please see the “SOURCES” section of the article. 2. For example, Anthony Spizzirri, who owned a tailor shop in Chicago, enlisted in the Navy at Great Lakes Naval Training Station, Illinois, on 25 April 1918. He is listed as being 5 feet, 4.75 inches tall and weighing 179 pounds, and his enlistment papers bear the notation: “Obesity waived for special duty as tailor.” Louis Bruno was co-owner of a tailor shop in Chicago; on 27 May 1918, Bruno enlisted in the Navy at Great Lakes. He was 5 feet 2.75 inches tall and weighed 116 pounds. His enlistment document bears the notation, “Underheight and underweight waived for special duty.” Both men were enlisted as firemen first class. See Louis Bruno and Anthony Spizzirri, U.S. Navy Service Record, National Archives and Records Administration, St. Louis, Missouri; copies in the author’s possession. Also see Peter L. Belmonte, Calabrian-Americans in the U.S. Military During World War I (CreateSpace, 2017). 3. On 9 September 1918, while on her return trip to North America, the Missanabie, a former British passenger steamer, was torpedoed and sunk off the southern coast of Ireland with a loss of forty-five lives. German U-boat UB–87 fired the fatal torpedo. See http://uboat.net/wwi/ships_hit/4178.html, accessed 19 July 2017. 4. Immigration dates were obtained through naturalization, census, and passport records, via Ancestry.com. Dates for any one man often vary among the sources; in these cases the author has used the date given on the document closest in time to the date of immigration. It should also be noted that some Italian immigrant men of this era made more than one trip to the United States. One man who was born in Italy in 1892 was listed in the 1900 U.S. Census for New Jersey, but no date of immigration has been found for him; he is counted in the table as “1890s.” 5. Belmonte, Calabrian-Americans in the U.S. Military, 13, 39, 140, entry for “Andrea Morelli.” 6. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Beneficiary Identification Records Locator Subsystem (BIRLS) data for one man gives a

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

date of entry into active duty of 23 April 1917; given the weight of the rest of the data, the author feels the year 1917 is in error and should be 1918, and the man is counted here as having entered service in April 1918. The New York State service record abstract for another man gives a date of enlistment as 20 July 1918, but a date of assignment at Garden City as 6 July 1918; this man has been counted as having entered service on 20 June (versus July) 1918. 7. The large number of men in the detachment who were of foreign birth makes the Sailmakers Detachment grounds for fruitful study of the social history of some immigrant doughboys. Many of the men naturalized at Camp Sevier were Russian, Polish, RussianPolish, Turkish-Armenian, Austrian, Scottish, etc.; probably many of them were Jewish. 8. Please note some men are counted in more than one squadron, having been transferred from, for example, the 1107th Aero Squadron to the 833d Aero Squadron. 9. The total for December 1918 includes one man for whom a date of discharge could not be determined. 10. The names appear in the table as they appear on the manifest. They are not always correct in their spelling; “Guiseppi,” for example, is properly “Giuseppe,” and Frank DeMaske appears differently in other documents. The prospective researcher should also be aware the spelling of the name on the manifest does not always agree with the spelling of the name under which the man was indexed in Ancestry.com.

On Our Covers René Chartrand The Front ... Assault by the 22d (French Canadian) Battalion at Neuville-Vitasse, 27 August 1918. ainting by Lt. Alfred Bastien showing his unit going “over the top” in the area east of Arras (France). It is held to be one of the starkest artistic and most realistic depictions of trench warfare by a participant. Canadian War Museum, Ottawa, Canada.

Photo and text by René Chartrand ... and the Back Regiment of United States Dragoons, standard bearer, 1846. Watercolor by Henry Larter. Anne S. K. Brown Military Collection, Brown University Library, Providence, Rhode Island. Photo by René Chartrand

Military Collector & Historian

A 1912 Real Picture Postcard of a Sailor from USS Franklin Anthony F. Gero

mages give historians, researchers, and collectors valuable windows into the past. Recently, a Real Picture Post Card (RPPC) of a sailor (FIG 1) of the fourth Navy ship to be named USS Franklin does just that. Launched in 1864 as a screw frigate, USS Franklin stayed in active service until 1877 and thereafter was used as a receiving ship at the Norfolk Navy Yard until decommissioned there in 1915.1 This unsent RPPC, now in the Anthony F. Gero Collection, has a notation on the reverse that reads (according to my interpretation), “U.S.S. Franklin Otto Zery (sic) 1912 just a cousin of mine Miss Anna Franzer.” Upon examination, the sailor’s hatband clearly shows the lettering for USS Franklin. Additionally, the image provides an excellent forensic study of this sailor who is armed and equipped for land service with a Model 1898 Krag rifle, bayonet, and web ammo belt.2 Since the ship was decommissioned in 1915, we have an unique snapshot into a sailor’s dress and equipage in 1912.3

My thanks go to Fellows Dave Sullivan, Mark Kassel, and late Fellow Roger Sturcke, along with Company members Bill Chachula, Terry Kaplan, Ron MacWillie, and Dave Kampf, plus Marcus Robbins of the Norfolk Naval Ship Yard for their assistance on the research for this short article. Notes 1. For some preliminary data from 1775 to 1944 on the ships commissioned USS Franklin, one can see: https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/USS Franklin. The source for the Wikipedia reference was, as stated in their article: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. My thanks also goes to Marcus Robbins of the Norfolk Naval Ship Yard in e-mail correspondence in late April/ early May 2017. 2. In consultation with Fellow Dave Sullivan in April 2017, we felt the weapon seen was a Krag rifle. Our observation was also confirmed in Franklin B. Mallory and Ludwig Olson’s, The Krag Story (Silver Spring, MD: Springfield Research Service, 1979), 86, “Starting in 1900, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps adopted the Krag rifle, and approximately 70,000 Model 1898 rifles were issued to them … .” See their entire “Chapter 7: Model 1898 RIFLE” and “Chapter 17: APPENDAGES AND ACCOUTREMENTS,” a copy supplied to me by the late Fellow Roger Sturcke. In e-mail correspondence with Fellow Mark Kasal and CMH members Bill Chachula, Terry Kaplan, and Ron MacWillie at the end of April 2017, their consensus was the weapon in the RPPC was a Krag. Unfortunately, they felt that from the angle in the RPPC they couldn’t tell whether the rear sight had been modified. 3. To begin the identification of U.S. Navy uniforms one may consult James C. Tily, The Uniforms of the United States Navy (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1962). According to CMH member Dave Kampf, “The rifle is definitely a Krag. The single stripe on his cuffs

indicated he is a seaman recruit or seaman apprentice (Army equivalent of buck private or private). The white cord around his neck disappearing into his trousers is probably attached to a sailor knife or combination tool,” taken from an e-mail sent 30 April 2017 to Mark Kasal then forwarded to the author answering his request for help with this RPPC’s image.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

Testing Underwater Ordnance in the Patuxent During World War II Merle T. Cole This article is extracted from the author’s monograph, “Solomons Mines”—A History of the U.S. Naval Mine Warfare Test Station, Solomons, Maryland, 1942–1947, published in 1987 by the Calvert Marine Museum, Solomons, Maryland.

rom 1942 to 1947, the U.S. Navy operated a research, development, and proof testing facility for mine warfare, countermine warfare, and torpedo warfare including related hardware and methods on a reservation at Point Patience, near Solomons Island, Maryland.

America and Mine Warfare The United States has been engaged by one aspect or another of mine warfare since before it became a nation.1 Historians generally agree mines in their recognizably modern form first appeared during the American Revolution when David Bushnell tried to break the British blockade of Philadelphia by floating mines in the Delaware River. The so-called “Battle of the Kegs” (1778) was unsuccessful but clearly established a precedent. American inventors such as Colt and Fulton later experimented with mine designs. The Russians used electrically fired, i.e., command detonated, mines for harbor defense during the Crimean War (1853–1856). Mine warfare came to the fore during the American Civil War, during which period the terms “torpedo” and “mine” were often used interchangeably. When Admiral Farragut ordered, “Damn the torpedoes!,” he was really damning the Confederate minefield in Mobile Bay. Lacking a sizeable navy, the Confederate States were forced to rely on “infernal machines” to fight the Federal naval blockade. More Federal ships fell victim to “torpedo warfare” than to any other form of combat. By the end of the Civil War, the mine had become a firmly established component of naval warfare. Mines were employed during several European wars of the late nineteenth century and in the Spanish-American War (1898). They reemerged with a vengeance during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905. Two of the czar’s capital ships were lost to mines and six of the emperor’s. Mines served both sides well during World War I. GermanTurkish minefields blunted initial Allied attempts to force the Dardanelles, leading to the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign. Later, the North Sea mine barrage greatly reduced the effectiveness of Germany’s U-boat operations in the Atlantic. The U.S. Navy played a key role in laying and maintaining this extensive minefield. Mine warfare took a quantum leap during World War II. Aerial delivery of the weapons over long distances enabled their truly offensive use. When in possession of air superiority, mines could be deployed by aircraft

deep into enemy controlled waters and existing mine belts thickened without the danger of running into one’s own weapons. The U.S. Army Air Force’s aerial mining campaign against Japan during the closing days of the war is the prime example of this technique. Bomber Command committed only about 5.7 percent of total bombload to “mining in” Japanese harbors and the Inland Sea. But the enemy credited Operation STARVATION with throttling seaborne commerce and generating economic impact equivalent to Bomber Command’s bombing and incendiary raids. Along with more effective delivery techniques came the development of sophisticated activating mechanisms. Earlier mine technology relied on actual contact between the mine and the ship’s hull for detonation. “Influence” mechanisms now appeared. These reacted to changes in magnetic fields generated by a ship’s metal mass, or the noise created by ship’s propellers or machinery (acoustics), or by the reduction of water pressure caused by a ship’s passage. Such devices were often employed together in the form of pressure-acoustic, magnetic-acoustic, and similar multiple triggers. This defeated or reduced the effectiveness of countermeasures, particularly when combined with such “fiendishly clever” devices as ship counters. These waited until a preset number of activations (ship passages) had occurred before detonating the mine. Thus did minefields believed to be “cleared” offer some nasty surprises to mariners. Although United Nations forces quickly established air and naval dominance during the Korean War, they could not overcome Communist mine warfare. Sovietdirected mining of coastal waters presented a major and unexpected challenge. In fact, all five American Naval vessels lost during the war were destroyed by mines. At Wonsan Harbor, a field of over three thousand mines delayed a planned amphibious interdiction of retreating North Korean forces. Pursuing U.N. forces overran the harbor area before the Marines landed. So effective were Soviet magnetic and contact mines, some American naval officers concluded the U.S. Navy had “lost command of the sea” in mined areas. Although the Navy renewed its emphasis on countermining measures, deteriorated since World War II, its overall approach to mine warfare as a whole has been characterized as ambivalent. Mine warfare was mainly of nuisance value during the Vietnam War until the very end. In May 1972, the Navy sowed mines in the inland rivers, coastal waters, and harbors of North Vietnam. Seaborne traffic, including several Soviet freighters, was “mined in” at Haiphong Harbor, and vessel movement ceased. This pressure facilitated conclusion of the Kissinger-Le Duc Tho

Military Collector & Historian

negotiations in Paris. The January 1973 accord ending America’s direct participation in the war notably included a proviso requiring the U.S. Navy to sweep the minefields. This task was accomplished during February-July 1974. The United States has experienced its share of problems with mines since Vietnam, notably during the recurrent upheavals in the Middle East. During the Six Day War of 1967, the Egyptians mined the Suez Canal and blocked it with scuttled ships. The U.S. Navy cleared the mines during April-June 1974. “Mystery mines,” probably placed by Libya, appeared in the Red Sea and Gulf of Suez in August 1984. The naval forces of nine countries, including the United States, engaged in countermeasure operations in those waters. (One is reminded of the “unidentified,” i.e., German and Italian, “pirate” submarine attacks during the Spanish Civil War.) Mining during the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) resulted, inter alia, in severe damage to, and wounding of ten sailors aboard, USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG–58) on 14 April 1988. In the Gulf War, Iraqi minefields severely damaged USS Princeton (CG–59) and USS Tripoli (LPH–10), both on 18 February 1991. Eight countries, again including the United States, cooperated in mine clearing postwar. Closer to home, mining prompted domestic political conflict. In early 1984, Congress condemned the Central Intelligence Agency for covertly aiding anti-Sandinista forces by mining Nicaraguan waters. The United States thwarted Nicaragua’s claim for damages before the International Court of Justice by an unprecedented disavowal of the court’s jurisdiction. This prompted a very negative United Nations tone regarding this and other American anti-Sandinista activity. Naval Mine Warfare Test Station, 1942–19472 In the earliest days of World War II, the German Air Force initiated aerial delivery of mines into British waters. A magnetic mine which landed on a mudflat in the Thames Estuary was cautiously retrieved and provided British scientists with the means to develop countermeasures against the German weapon. In early 1941, the U.S. Navy’s Naval Ordnance Laboratory (NOL) decided to establish a magnetic survey range. Based in the Washington Navy Yard at the time, NOL wanted a site fairly close to Washington which had “sheltered deep water, relatively undisturbed by excessive tidal currents and merchant shipping.” They selected Point Patience, about “one mile upstream from the village of Solomons” in Calvert County, Maryland. The site had been used as a surplus ship lay-up site since 1927. The lay-up anchorage and an adjoining strip of land were leased by the United States Shipping Board and Maritime Commission. The Navy Department assumed and continued the lease.

NOL already operated a number of facilities in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries: Wolf Trap, Virginia, for measuring ship signatures; anti-torpedo work at Piney Point, Maryland; at Fort Monroe, Virginia, for testing mine firing devices used in harbors and channels; and in the lower bay, mine performance and countermining tests in varying water depths, currents, and bottom conditions. The NOL Facility was initially designated “Solomons Proving Ground, Naval Experimental Station, Naval Ordnance Research [sic] Laboratory.” It was intended as a temporary project engaged in degaussing, flashing for consistency, and coil design experiments on destroyersized ships. It also tested apparatuses to be used in such larger installations as the Reckoning Point project at Pearl Harbor; the Craney Light, Virginia, Demagnetization and Flashing Station; and numerous other calibration and flashing installations planned by the Bureau of Ordnance (BuOrd). On 21 June 1941, the Secretary of War established a restricted area in the Patuxent River for station use. New construction was underway at the Solomons range by February 1942 and by March some thirty NOL civilian scientists and technicians were working on “recording … data on the protection of naval ships against magnetic mines.” They also studied locating “metallic objects on a sea floor by electrical and magnetic methods (useful in discovering enemy laid mine fields), explosive countermine testing of U.S. mine designs, and acoustic data on the performance of U.S. and enemy mine designs under service conditions.”3 The true nature of the threat was driven home during the summer of 1942, when for several days “the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay was closed to all traffic because of the presence of [U-boat laid] mines.” On 25 May 1942, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations (VCNO) urged upon Chief BuOrd the definite need for “an operational research unit to consider problems … connected with mine warfare” identified by BuOrd or the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV). At the same time, the Bureau of Ships (BuShips) Acoustics Section was pressing the urgent need for countermeasures. An area of special concern was the perceived likelihood that the Germans would employ different mines against the American Navy than they had used against Britain, in order to complicate countermeasures efforts. BuShips’ interest in the work injected the perennial complication of interbureau rivalry and competition for resources. In June 1942, conferences yielded a formal proposal for a joint BuOrd-BuShips “Mine Countermeasure Laboratory,” in which research, development, and testing would be conducted without “distinctions of cognizance” (i.e., responsibility). The NOL countermeasure unit would be moved from the Navy Yard to Solomons and BuShips would also concentrate its countermeasures work in that locale. “The Solomons Proving Ground was considered an ideal site for the proposed laboratory: an isolated locale;

water of depths from two to twenty fathoms; varied salinity, permitting both salt and fresh water sweeping within five miles of the laboratory; [and] splendid conditions for the investigation of harbor defenses and mine watch problems.” BuShips requested authority from OPNAV to establish the proposed joint laboratory 23 June. But a BuOrd counterproposal on 8 July specified the laboratory be under its command. Mines and countermeasures work should be closely integrated under BuOrd “with separation on a cognizance basis” in the later stages of development and preparation for quantity procurement. The two bureaus submitted a rough joint plan on 13 July and on 1 August the agencies jointly requested VCNO authority some 350 acres of land at Point Patience and to proceed immediately on “urgent tasks” in the area of mine warfare. The request were approved on 8 August 1942.4 Ens. Lawrence T. Hickey was named “Officer in Charge [OIC] of the Mine Warfare Experimental Station” and on 10 October administrative control of the station was transferred from the Navy Yard to the Naval Powder Factory at Indian Head, Maryland. Special Order No. 1031, dated 5 November 1942, established the Naval Mine Warfare Proving Ground at Solomons under BuOrd control as a Fifth Naval District activity. One week later, Capt. Hugh P. LeClair came aboard as commanding officer; Hickey remained as administrative officer. The “proving ground” title quickly proved problematic because of the proximity of Naval Proving Ground, Dahlgren, Virginia. The confusion to visitors and the postal service was alleviated on 8 January 1943, when Special Order No. 1537 redesignated the Solomons facility, “U.S. Naval Mine Warfare Test Station” (NMWTS). At the beginning of 1944, the station was transferred from Fifth Naval District to Commandant, Potomac River Naval Command (PRNC).5 Condemnation proceedings to acquire needed land were begun in October 1942. The United States District Court for Maryland granted the Navy petition and required that all occupied land be vacated by 5 November. A 15 May 1943 declaration of taking filed with the court identified 286.0 acres in 33 tracts, aggregating a fair market value of $174,698.50. The court approved the declaration of taking on 23 May. When the final payment was made on 11 August 1947, the acquisition had cost the Navy $233,769.18.6 Captain LeClair reemphasized that bureau rivalry had to be minimized in research and development (R&D) operations. It would be more “economical not to make [bureau cognizance] distinction” prior to the “production stage.” The bureau chiefs agreed with LeClair in a joint letter to the Chief of Naval Personnel (NAVPERS). This 28 December 1942 letter requested assignment of an initial complement of ten officers and one warrant officer (machine shop supervisor). Key positions would be filled with an officer from one bureau, with the principal

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

assistant being from the other. Thus, for example, the Experimental and Research Officer was to be a BuShips lieutenant commander, assisted by a BuOrd lieutenant, lieutenant j. g., or ensign. The Proof Officer billet would be filled with a BuOrd candidate with a BuShips deputy. This pattern was clearly intended to further defuse bureau rivalry concerns. Since the chosen area was largely undeveloped, an “extremely rapid construction of facilities” was necessary and achieved. In the last days of September 1942, two warehouses and a large contractor’s office building (later converted for use as a barracks) were underway. The next month a mess hall, two bachelor officer quarters (BOQ), a water pumping station, and a barracks were begun. In December 1942, work began on the administrative building, dispensary, and garage. The furious pace continued in the new year, which saw construction of a countermeasures building, power house, station laboratory, mine assembly building, machine shop, cook’s quarters, a Helmholz shack, recreation building, paint locker, sewage treatment plant, two piers, and an instructional building. (See Map 1.) Temporary barracks and a boat house were underway by May 1943.7 Captain LeClair issued the first formal statement of the station’s mission and organization on 17 February 1943. “The mission of the Mine Warfare Test Station is: (a) to conduct … research and experimental work in underwater warfare materials and methods both offensive and defensive; (b) to make preliminary tests of promising methods and materials; (c) to conduct final acceptance tests of mass produced materials and selected methods; and (d) to train, in special circumstances, a limited number of officers and men in handling special equipment, all to be accomplished with efficiency and dispatch.” To accomplish this mission, the station was structured into experimental, proof, administrative, maintenance, supply, and medical divisions, and “main files.” LeClair consolidated this structure into four departments on 1 July: underwater weapons, countermeasures, intelligence, and services. This organization remained intact until February 1945.8 As the summer of 1943 approached, station construction was nearing completion. The installation was also suffering “acute growing pains.” “In fact, a history of the Mine Warfare Test Station from this date [to the summer of 1945] is a history of rapid development and expansion.” This prompted “eternal pleas for increase in enlisted complement, in technically trained officers, in clerical help, in facilities of every description.” Captain LeClair made an urgent appeal in July 1943 for an Executive Officer (XO or second in command) to relieve him of administrative responsibilities so he could concentrate

Military Collector & Historian

on technical problems. But an XO was not assigned until November 1944. By December 1943, the station was short 734 and possibly even more bunks. A new BOQ and dispensary were also required. Even water was in short supply and a new well was needed in order to prevent shortages and periodic stoppages. LeClair also deplored the absence of adequate recreation facilities, because “it’s pretty sad down here for any human beings to live.” In large part, shortcomings followed from the Mine Warfare Test Station’s continued designation as a temporary installation. In November 1944, Chief BuOrd urged the secretary of the navy to redesignate the station as permanent. Its mission is “such as to require the continuation of a large part of the work in peacetime in order that the U.S. Navy may be prepared to engage in a war with modern and up-to-date countermeasures against foreign underwater ordnance.” Placing the station in permanent status would also permit “appropriate planning for peacetime.” The secretary of the navy concurred on 7 December 1944. Meanwhile, continued growth outpaced station resources. For example, the enlisted barracks accommodated 1,170 sailors and Marines, while the total enlisted complement (including students), stood at 1,272. The garage had to contend with five times as many vehicles as it was designed to handle and the boat repair shop could meet only about a third of the demands placed upon it. Captain LeClair urged the station be permitted to use the facilities of Naval Amphibious Training Base (ATB), Solomons, some two miles to the east by road. The ATB was to be disestablished in March 1945. Resources of particular interest were maintenance equipment and buildings for the Countermeasures Department testing laboratory, an engineering laboratory and shop for the Special Weapons School, supply warehouses, landing craft, messing accommodations, a commissary, a laundry, and four barracks. Eighty officers and one thousand enlisted men could be housed at the ATB. LeClair’s request was granted. On 19 March 1945, the ATB was “disestablished and placed in a caretaker status, for possible reactivation within sixty days as a housing activity, under the cognizance of the Commanding Officer, Mine Warfare Test Station.” Ironically, by that date LeClair was gone from the scene, having been replaced by Capt. Henry Williams on 12 February 1945. LeClair was awarded the Legion of Merit for his two years and ten months of diligent work in leading the station. Captain Williams continued his predecessor’s “vigorous physical expansion” and restructured the station “to meet tense wartime needs.”

There were now ten departments in the organization: executive, underwater weapons, countermeasures, operations, maintenance, supply, medical, intelligence and security, station laboratory, and communications.9 Not surprisingly, the Underwater Weapons Department was a key focus. It evolved from the Proof Division, which was responsible for final acceptance testing of underwater ordnance before release for service use, testing underwater warfare methods, and operating related schools.10 To these tasks were added conducting experimental tests on ordnance developed elsewhere; testing and reporting on novel weapons; and liaising with the Countermeasures Department regarding characteristics of weapons tested. At maximum complexity (February 1944), the department had fifteen divisions: W–1, Operations; W–2, Explosive Test; W–3, Mine Test; W–4, Torpedo Test; W–5, Weapons Laboratory; W–6, Material; W–7, Special Weapons (Project “F” and related projects); W–8, Instrumentation; W–9, Divers and Locators; and W–10 through –15, which were individual ships or support test support vessels. By the end of the war, Underwater Weapons had shrunk to only seven divisions. Explosive Test Division (W–2) was noteworthy as the Navy’s first “organized facility … for full-scale explosive testing of underwater ordnance.” It inherited tests from the Mine Warfare School at Yorktown dealing with long-term tropical storage effects on torpedo warhead deterioration. In 1944, W–2 performed over 200 tests for NOL and the BuOrd High Explosives Research Group, consuming 971,356 pounds of high explosives in the process. Examples of explosives tested included torpex, tritonol, minol, haleite, ednatol, and DBX. The largest shot fired at Solomons “was a 23-ton TNT charge designed to countermine certain German mines which could not be swept successfully by conventional means.” The massive charge was intended to create such powerful surface waves that the mine’s firing mechanism would be activated. Mine Test Division (W–3) began service testing of mines in January 1943. Representative studies involved premature explosions, countermining dip action of moored mines, and sea action of mines. It had a central role in recommending whether given types of mines should be accepted for service use and in developing utilization instructions. The mine mechanism testing rooms were air conditioned to provide controlled temperatures and humidity for testing firing mechanisms. Also of interest was the Deep Water Mine Pen, which was “enclosed by wooden pilings and wire cables in which long time life tests may be conducted.” A high pressure tank was available to simulate planting mines “at depths of up to 575 feet.” Next to it was a tank used for testing drift-type mines. Aerial minelaying tests were supported by PBYs and TBMs from NAS Patuxent River. Another interesting test involved radar laying of mines from 25,000 feet above water surface and satisfying an urgent

operational requirement for design and service testing on three mine types in sixty days, During World War II, the station received two commendations from Chief BuOrd as a direct result of W–3’s performance. Torpedo Test Division (W–4) grew out of early work to test the Mine Mark 27 (Project “G”). This device was “for most practical purposes … a torpedo.” It was the first fullsize torpedo-like weapon developed at the station. The division carried out research on torpedo exploder failures, a problem which had frequently bedeviled American submariners in attacks on Japanese shipping. By war’s end, the division possessed facilities for “the overhaul and servicing of almost every type of torpedo” used by the U.S. Navy. Its capabilities were also employed to test acoustic echo-ranging torpedoes; evaluate homing torpedoes which used photo-electric mechanisms; evaluate the operating characteristics of captured German T–5 torpedoes; test battle noises simulators used to divert attention from the site of actual amphibious landings; and a Submerged Obfuscating Body (SOB) which amplified sonar “pings” and thereby mislead anti-submarine vessels. Many of the projects remained classified for decades and the official Navy history was “sanitized” by deleting related classified materials. Similarly, all work performed by Special Weapons Division (W–7) remained classified and was deleted from the Navy history in its entirety. Special Weapons School (W–5) trained crews of civilians, Navy and Army officers and enlisted men, and personnel of Allied forces. The school syllabus covered special underwater weapons, electricity, tools, batteries, acoustics, gyroscopes, range equipment, controls, the Project “F” mine, Projects “I” and “J” torpedoes, laboratory work, ranging, and crew handling. Facilities of the disestablished ATB were used for much of the training. Refresher courses were also presented to sailors returning from the war in the Atlantic. From 1943 to 1945, W–5 had formed and trained about 135 crews. One humorous situation arising in Torpedo Barges Division (W–6) involved barge YTT–2. While serving at Naval Torpedo Testing Range, Montauk, New York, in August 1942, it had been inspected and determined to need $25,000 in repairs. The barge was assigned to PRNC and immediately sent to Curtis Bay Coast Guard Yard at Baltimore. When repairs were eventually completed, the total bill came to $400,000—and YTT–2 was “still in poor condition despite the expensive” repairs. It was finally declared excess on 13 September 1945 and tied up at a pier at the old ATB. Countermeasures Department evolved from the old Experimental and Research Division.11 It originally functioned under BuShips’ Minesweeping Research Section, testing minesweeping equipment and developing fleet sweep instructions. Its mission was to conduct research in countermeasures to underwater ordnance; conduct and report on experimental and proof tests of countermeasures materials and methods; keep fully

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

informed about all underwater weapons tested at the station or used by allied or enemy navies; operate schools; and liaise with BuShips on new countermeasures for foreign (allied and enemy) underwater weapons. In August 1945, the department had seven divisions. Moored Mine Division (C–1) naturally focused on sweeping minefields. Much work was done on explosive cutters, used to sever a moored mine’s chain and thereby set it adrift. Typical projects included adapting captured German light sweeping devices for “preinvasion sweep along beaches”; conducting seven weeks of tests on the west coast with high-speed sweeps (conditions could not be replicated in Chesapeake waters); developing a sweep for use against the Japanese type JI drifting mine; and development of bottom-sweeping devices. Magnetic Division (C–2) conducted test and development work on sea bottom electrical resistivity, magnetic sweep fields and magnetic sweep gear; operated the Helmholtz laboratory, which was used to test the response of magnetic mine mechanisms to controlled magnetic fields; and produced scale model equipment. In early 1941 it undertook an extensive program of sea bottom resistivity measurement. This work was initiated by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey then transferred to the station. Sea bottom surveys were made in the Patuxent, the bay, the York River, Boston Harbor, and the Rockland, Maine, area. Oceanic sea bottom surveys were made along the east coast from September 1943 to April 1944. The division also developed magnetic sweep gear for shallow waters and for unusually sensitive magnetic mines. Overall, ten major types of sweeps were tested, of which four were released for fleet use. Acoustic Division (C–3) developed and tested devices for triggering acoustic mines. Many devices generated underwater racket that simulated ship noises and thereby triggered firing mechanisms. The division also developed devices to confuse German acoustic homing torpedoes, which became a significant threat in the late summer of 1943. Other acoustic activation mechanisms included grenade sweeps (chains of grenades and later TNT charges) detonated at precise intervals; hydraulic sirens; modified concrete vibration machines; a towed waterdisplacement device (christened “Loch Ness monster”) designed to trigger German “oyster type” pressure mines; and modulation projects for special control equipment. Sweep Test Division (C–4) was created in October 1943 to relieve C–2 and –3 of increasingly burdensome sweep testing work. Several types of mines were sweep tested, including sample of captured German acoustic-pressure mines. Some tests were conducted at the Wolf Trap range in the lower bay.

Military Collector & Historian

The Photographic Laboratory Division (C–6) documented departmental test operations. It grew continuously and eventually took over all station photographic work. Services encompassed still and motion picture and color or black and white film. High-speed film was available to cover aerial drops and torpedo runs. Coverage was often provided from blimps or, toward the end of the war, helicopters. The Operations Department, the last large department, was created in February 1945 to centralize control of test support vessels and related resources.12 Its initial mission was to keep boats used for afloat operations in working order. The number of vessels available to the station continued to grow, including by March 1943 a minesweeper (USS Accentor, AMC–36) and a minelayer (USS Wassuc, CMC–3). By January 1944 there were some sixty craft assigned. Boats were either pooled (unassigned) or allotted to the Underwater Weapons Departments for use in areas below Point Patience and off Broomes Island, or to Countermeasures for use above Point Patience, and at station Pier II. The department’s Officer-Coordinator was in charge of water area allocations, navigation, notices to mariners, and preparing operational orders. An Engineer Officer supervised the boat engine repair shop, hull yard, and overhaul shop. A Yard Craft Officer assigned vessels and controlled their movement, directed the 140 boat operators, and directed minor tow jobs. An executive assistant functioned as administrative officer and assisted the operations officer. Operations Division was structured in five divisions: O–1, Boat House; O–2, Hull Yard; O–3, Diver/Locator; O–4, Lighter-than-Air (LTA) Craft; O–5, Lower River Control. The last three are of particular interest. Diver/Locator Division (O–3) grew out of NOL field testing of underwater locators which started at Solomons early in 1942. The first development was a 700-pound air-core gradiometer dubbed “King Kong,” which could locate ferrous materials. This device was used to locate torpedoes at the Newport, Rhode Island, and Piney Point ranges. A total of fifteen were built at the station. NOL also built and tested a nonferrous materials detector known as an Electrical Discontinuity Discriminator (or “E.D.D.”). It was first used along the Atlantic Coast to locate German mines, then at Solomons in the fall of 1942 to locate air-dropped Mk 12 mines. Other locators included a permalloy-core gradiometer used by divers to precisely locate buried objects and an acoustic locating device called the “pinger.” A small complement of divers first came to Solomons in spring 1943. They were assigned to the Mary S., a small

fishing boat which proved inadequate. Later, a Landing Craft, Medium (LCM) was acquired and converted by the divers in their spare time. Then the divers received a locator boat, the Sidney R. Riggin, latterly an oyster boat, equipped with the “E.D.D.” and later “King Kong” devices. The number of assigned craft increased, as did the complement. By V–J Day, 2 officers, 54 men, 5 diving boats, 4 locator boats, a recovery boat, and a personnel boat were assigned to O–3. Because of the divers, the station required a medical officer qualified in deep-sea diving and submarine medicine. The station also boasted two recompression chambers—one ashore at Pier III, the diver headquarters, and the other aboard diving ship YDT–7. According to the official Navy history, “Diving accidents and bends have been rare at this station, due to careful timing of men on the bottom, and adequate recompression given them upon reaching topside.” Only two incidents of bends were recorded. Also, in December 1944 “a diver was down when a mine was exploded about a thousand feet away.” He was hospitalized for observation but discharged after “it was definitely determined that he had suffered no injuries.” The LTA Craft Division (O–4) arose from a September 1944 request by the station commander that a blimp be detailed to NAS Patuxent River for thirty days to assist in test observations. NAS Lakehurst, New Jersey, promptly dispatched an aircraft to meet the need. The LTA proved quite valuable in test work and a permanent assignment was requested. Following construction of a perforated steel runway and a small airship mast, blimp number G–3 was assigned to the station. The unit carried the designation Detachment 1–3 of Airship Utility Squadron 1 (ZJ–1). It was activated 17 November 1944 under command of Lt. Russell D. Freel. On 6 January 1945, G–3 was “deflated while being docked in front of hanger #5” at NAS Lakehurst, following a “weather escape” from Solomons on the fifth. Airship G–6 was dispatched to Solomons as a replacement on 7 January. In February 1945, Detachment 1–3 was consolidated with other test support resources under Operations Department, and designated LTA Craft Division (O–4). Since October 1944, Detachment 1–2 of Squadron ZJ–1 had operated at Naval Proving Ground, Dahlgren. Its primary mission was supporting torpedo firing tests at Piney Point. On 12 March 1945, the two detachments were consolidated at Solomons, and designated Detachment 1–2. The unit comprised blimps G–6 and G–7, thirteen officers and twenty-two enlisted men, with Lieutenant Freel in command. On 10-11 May, the blimps were “caught on the mast … in a storm during which winds gusted to 60 knots.” Both ships survived but “took a severe beating on the nose assembly.” On 30 May, flight operations terminated and the blimps were transferred to separate squadrons. Detachment 1–2 was disestablished 6 June 1945. In supporting torpedo recovery, observation, general photography, and special

search operations “the blimp graduated to a position of importance not previously attained.” Lower River Control Division (O–5) was responsible for coordinating tests between Point Patience and Sandy Point. It granted “clearances for test runs, air drops, diving, locating and recovery operations, and the movement of craft through the area … . A control tower on the YC–758 [an open lighter vessel], overlooking the entire area … operated throughout the working day.” This tower served as the Operations Officer’s “eyes” and as a radio relay. Further, a “radio equipped speed boat serves as a police boat (and in some cases an observation boat) for the safe expedition of air drops and test runs.” Two river control areas were established by the secretary of war on 6 April 1943. The station’s smaller organizational components can be quickly covered.13 The Station Laboratory was originally an NOL annex. It was later used for various purposes, including shop, storage, and R&D work. Civilian contractor researchers were housed there alongside BuOrd and NOL representatives. A Radio Division operating from there controlled the over 250 transceivers in use on the station. The laboratory also ran an Instrument Division, which pooled expensive but less frequently used equipment. It also provided instrument making and calibration services, a drafting room, and a small machine shop, which fabricated an average of fifty-six new devices per month. The Maintenance Department was organized into planning, engineering and repairs, electrical, public works, utilities, and transportation divisions. It also had responsibility for “the recently decommissioned Amphibious Training Base.” Station supply, procurement, and disbursing needs were met by the Supply Division. The station’s geographic isolation caused some delays in acquiring critically needed materials. The nearest railroad was at Upper Marlboro, forty-five miles to the north. An inadequate telephone system and lack of fuel storage facilities also presented challenges which were eventually overcome. Medical support for the station initially came from the ATB. A small dispensary (two two-bed wards) opened in April 1943, where a doctor from the ATB and a pharmacist’s mate held daily sick call. Expanded medical staff arrived in September 1943, consisting of 2 doctors, 2 dentists, 6 nurses, a chief pharmacist’s mate, and 22 corpsmen. A new dispensary was opened in December 1944. Emergency surgery could be performed locally, but major elective surgery cases were sent to Bethesda Naval Hospital. By war’s end, the professional staff had gown to three doctors and three dentists. Installation security at first consisted of a small civilian guard force patrolling the station’s inner area. The official Navy history records the first civilian guard “used to patrol his area by day in a rowboat.” In January 1944, a Marine detachment assumed the security role. The

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

Intelligence and Security Department had cognizance over the on-shore restricted area, and acted as the station commander’s liaison with the Coast Guard, which was responsible for enforcing regulations concerning prohibited river areas. Security was maintained by colorcoded badges and specific project clearances. Military and civilian personnel and contractor employees were also subject to background screening before assignment to the station. Fire was a continuing concern. An interesting incident on 29 June 1944 involved fires discovered at 1400 and 2145. The first fire was minor, but the second was on a “barge which was loaded with approximately eight tons of torpex, and was moored only about 40 feet from a fleettype submarine [emphasis in original].” A seventeenyear-old sailor was being commended for his alertness in spotting the fire at the very moment the Security Officer reported the young man’s confession—the sailor was a pyromaniac. The Intelligence and Security Department was responsible for communications functions until December 1944, when the Communications Department was established. The new entity controlled message traffic records, radio communications, the telephone system, and the post office. The station could not dispatch classified messages until February 1943, when a teletypewriter and coding board were transferred from the ATB. Earlier, all message traffic was handled either by the ATB or special messenger. The station’s first post office opened in July 1943 and guard-mail service became available in April 1944. Disestablishment On 31 July 1945, Captain Williams summarized his views on the NMWTS station’s postwar role in a letter to Chief BuOrd. He noted continued need for the former ATB facilities, and the lack of civilian personnel or housing for them “in the isolated town of Solomons.” Postwar plans called for a reduction in officer complement from 259 to 44 and enlisted men from 2,089 to 275. To continue the work, the civilian complement would almost double (from 343 to 667). Additional and improved physical plant was also a necessity, including replacing all temporary war construction with permanent buildings.14 Public works funding for 1946 emphasized construction of on-base housing for civilian employees. Local employees available during the war were already returning to peacetime pursuits, so that “most of the 856 civilian employees will have to be recruited from distant areas.” No facilities were available locally for employees with families. Additional land would also have to be purchased. Housing 302 families was estimated to cost $5.2 million.

Military Collector & Historian

Converting barracks into apartments for married naval personnel would require a further $326,000. Other costs involved a new chapel, high explosive magazines, explosives handling pier, an elevated water storage tank, relocating officer quarters threatened by shoreline erosion, and assorted other improvements and additions.15 Such a spending proposal ran directly counter to “budget slashing” following V–J Day. The entire national military establishment suffered, but the Navy mine warfare program was especially hard hit. Most of its vessels were either mothballed or scrapped outright and its personnel complement—heavy with reservists—was allowed to wither away. Within the Navy, there was certainly a “lack of naval interest and emphasis on mine warfare” in the 1945–1950 period. This even included a proposal to eliminate the mineman military specialty rating. Generally, high Navy officials did not consider mine warfare a field that “required a lot of training, experience, or research. Consequently, the mine as a modern naval weapon became more and more neglected as a serious threat to control of the seas.”16 Notwithstanding its recently won permanent installation status, the station could not survive in this environment— never mind expansion or improvement. On 30 June 1947, BuOrd decided to disestablish the Naval Mine Warfare Test Station “to conserve personnel and funds.”17 For installation physical development at this time, see Map 2. The official Navy history credits Naval Mine Warfare Test Station, Solomons, with five major achievements during World War II: 1.

2. 3.

Assisting in development of over twenty new naval mines, several of which were “planted in large quantities, and were a major factor in the successful prosecution of the war in the Pacific theater.” Assisting in development of acoustic homing torpedoes and mobile mines and proof testing production units before issuance to the fleet. Assisting in development of countermeasures for enemy and allied mines and torpedoes, providing a nucleus of countermeasures officers for fleet duty, and “to a large extent [making] possible the issuance of minesweeping gear and instructions” for the U.S. Navy. Achieving a unique position in the field of ordnance education by training the vast majority of “the hundreds of enlisted technicians and officers who maintained acoustical torpedoes and mines aboard carriers and submarine tenders and those who established overhaul shops throughout the world … .” Providing technical knowledge which would prove “invaluable in any future preparedness program.”

The station received the Naval Ordnance Development Award on 16 September 1946 in recognition of distinguished service in developing torpedo design and

development, testing of special torpedoes, and design and service testing of mines. A number of civilian employees and associates received individual awards for their contributions to the station’s mission. Interestingly, Dr. Reginald V. Truitt, director of the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory in Solomons, received a Naval Ordnance Development Award “for distinguished work in connection with the underwater noises of marine life.”18 Naval Ordnance Laboratory Test Facility, 1947–1982 After the war, BuShips transferred it minesweeping work to Panama City, Florida, and the entire Solomons station was turned over to BuOrd. Postwar budget cuts meant BuOrd did not have the funds to operate a station designed to accommodate 2,400 people. An initial decision was taken to close the station and move it into caretaker status. NOL protested that it badly needed access to the station’s natural features and facilities in support of field testing and arranged to retain a large cove and about a half dozen buildings. The remainder of the buildings, including most of the housing, was turned over to NAS Patuxent River.19 On 1 July 1947, the secretary of the navy officially established U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory Test Facility (NOLTF). NOL had been relocated from the Navy Yard to new facilities at White Oak, Maryland. It had several field units aside from Solomons: NOL Unit, Fort Story, Virginia—for testing underwater ordnance in rough sea conditions for bottom stability and other characteristics; NOL Unit, Fort Monroe, Virginia—a water test area in the Hampton Roads channel for evaluating mine responses to actual ship traffic; NOL Experimental Facility, Hiwassee Dam, North Carolina—for towing, dropping, projecting, and launching inert-loaded ordnance into still, deep water against simulated targets; and NOLTF, Barcroft, Virginia—waterfront and floating facilities for underwater acoustic calibration and test work.20 The Solomons site was retained largely because NOL already had a core of technical officers and civilians in residence and it was only seventy miles from White Oak. The water areas of Patuxent River and Chesapeake Bay were uniquely suited to NOL’s technical work “both current and contemplated.” They were “one of the very few locations where underwater explosive work could be conducted in sheltered water and close proximity to both an air station [aerial delivery of ordnance was a major test workload] and a suitable ordnance shore facility.” NOLTF was assigned 18 acres in the so-called “technical area” of the former station, between Second and Home (Third) Coves, along the reservation’s southern shore. A wire security fence and guards separated NOLTF from the rest of the reservation. The initial complement was twenty-two enlisted men, ten civilians, and a chief warrant officer serving as OIC. NOLTF also had access to other small sections of the reservation, including piers, magazines, and observation stations. Sixteen vessels

were inherited from the station, including an acoustic test and barracks barge; a torpedo range tender; an ordnance planter/recovery vessel; and a barge with a 60ton seaplane wrecking derrick which doubled as a diving tender. NOLTF’s original mission was to provide shore equipment, specialized craft, and suitable water areas for torpedo testing, aircraft-laid mine evaluation and countermeasures studies in support of NOL.21 The remainder of the reservation was used for other Navy needs. The U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (CEL) was established there on 1 April 1948. Its mission was to conduct basic and applied research on engineering problems and develop “amphibious equipment under cognizance of the Bureau of Yards and Docks.” Much of CEL’s mission had previously been performed under contract to universities and colleges. Projections for some four hundred employees and construction of a $2 million laboratory building dramatically shortened CEL’s tenure at Solomons. The Navy decided the work could be more economically performed by moving the laboratory to Port Hueneme, California, home of the Naval Construction Battalion (“Seabees”) Center. Research and support personnel were transferred and CEL closed out at Solomons on 23 January 1950, barely twenty-two months after activation. The reservation next became an annex to NAS Patuxent River, under Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) management. The annex was used “primarily for public quarters for personnel stationed at the NAS and for some NOLTF personnel.”22 As for NOLTF itself, it focused during 1947-1950 on high- and low-altitude aerial delivery of ordnance (mostly mines), “torpedo shots into the river, and explosive work with mines.” From 1951 to 1958 torpedo work “diminished to zero” and the torpedo shop was converted for additional mine and missile assembly. A headthrown weapon, moored mine, and missile test projects increased. Aircraft drops of new mines proved a steady workload. “Underwater explosive shots to measure shock damage and evaluation of new explosives developed by NOL continued active.”23 On 1 April 1965, the Solomons Annex was transferred, yo-yo like, back to the NOLTF. This gave the unit a total land area of 285.1 acres. During the 1960s, the facility experienced a steadily increasing workload in parallel to Navy operations in Southeast Asia. A March 1968 command briefing pamphlet pointed out the addition of a Patrol Boat River (PBR) to the unit fleet as “a platform to evaluate a great variety of items used in riverine warfare.” Expanded capability was evident in the presence of two diving boats and fourteen divers, so “diving support can be furnished at two separate locations at the same time, utilizing either surface-supplied air or SCUBA equipment to the maximum water depths in the test range.”24 By 1965, NOLTF had attained its maximum strength of 2 officers, 29 enlisted men, and 100 civilians. The facility was by then technically under the Bureau of Naval Weapons (BuWeps), a short-lived amalgamation of BuOrd and BuAer. Its official mission was to “conduct

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

field tests and evaluation for the [NOL] in support of complete underwater weapons systems, and their assemblies, components, and materials, and missiles.” A wide range of ordnance items were tested, including mines, depth charges, ahead-thrown weapons, bombs, fuzes, pyrotechnic devices, missiles, and special weapons. Representative special projects were the Submarine Launched Mobile Mine; CAPTOR (encapsulated torpedo) deep-water homing mine; Intermediate Water-Depth Mine (IDM); Quickstrike mine series; Submarine Emergency Communication Transmitter; and Seagoing Platform for Acoustical Research (SPAR), an unmanned vessel used to determine mine error bearings in the antisubmarine warfare program. NOL was the designated lead laboratory for riverine and coastal craft problems under the Navy’s Vietnam Laboratory Assistance Program (VLAP). At NOLTF, this mission was evidenced by such projects as Small Craft Armament (SCRAM) evaluation of weapons for the PBR craft; swimmer weapons for UDT and SEAL teams (“virtually a new area of warfare”); contraband search devices to assist Operation GAME WARDEN coastal patrols; 60-mm mortar system tests; and conversion of aerial bombs into mines for land and water interdiction of transportation routes. Beginning in September 1972, NOLTF began working in a totally different area of warfare. Like most combat systems, naval vessels are vulnerable to the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) generated by nuclear explosions. A pulse generating facility dubbed EMPRESS (EMP Radiation Environment Simulator for Ships) was constructed along the eastern shore of Point Patience. A transmission line some 1,300 yards long was suspended from 100-foot high Douglas fir poles. “Hardening” tests directed emissions against destroyer-sized target vessels anchored in the bight just east of the point. Tested periodically were USS Valcour (AVP–55), USS Laffey (DD–724), and USS John King (DDG–3). But fish kills related to the testing caused a public outcry and EMPRESS operations were suspended in late 1987.25 During the mid-1960s, the U.S. Coast Guard developed an interest in the Point Patience area as a possible station location. The Navy eventually agreed to transfer 6.3 acres around Third (Home) Cove for this purpose. Although existing real property maps show the transfer as effective 29 May 1967, it never occurred.26 Rather than the Coast Guard, Naval District Washington (NDW) inherited the lion’s share of the Solomons reservation. NDW, headquartered in the Navy Yard, had been formed on 1 January 1965 by merging PRNC with the Severn River Naval Command. This proved a fortuitous action. During a 1967 tour, the NDW inspector general recognized the possibility of using much of the

Military Collector & Historian

land at Solomons Test Facility “in a dual capacity.” An ad hoc committee was appointed to investigate its utility for recreational purposes. The committee recommended hiring a professional recreation planning consultant to develop a more detailed study. Out of this grew Naval Recreation Center, Solomons (NRCS), which opened in May 1970 with limited capacity. The Navy had sold the idea by carefully pointing out that it would not compete with local civilian businesses and that its presence would “bring social and economic advantages to the local community.” They pointed out naval enlisted personnel found much of the Washington metropolitan area’s recreational venues overcrowded, high-priced, and oriented toward nonmilitary clientele. NRCS deliberately used local contractors and civilian workers to build, maintain, and operate its recreational facilities. Estimated development costs of $2.5 million would initially be funded from ship’s stores and Navy Exchange profits, after which the center would become self-supporting. NRCS has since grown into a major complex of overnight accommodations, camp sites, cottages, bungalows, food facilities, pools, hiking trails, a golf course, picnic sites, tennis, roller skating, biking, and boat and fishing tackle rentals.27 NOL provided security, safety, fire protection, and public works support to NRCS under an intra-service support agreement. NOL also provided space at Solomons in support of the Naval Electronics Systems Engineering Activity for storage of electronic equipment and to the Naval Aviation Logistics Center for a ground-support equipment fleet support site.28 On 1 September 1974, NOL was combined with Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahlgren to form the new Naval Surface Weapons Center (NSWC). Then, effective 1 March 1978, “another major reorganization was implemented at NSWC, effectively eliminating the Dahlgren and White Oak Laboratories as separately managed entities.”29 NOLTF had faced three recurring threats to its continued existence. As far back as 1965, proposals had been made to relocate it as a tenant of another activity— most often NAS Patuxent River or Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia. Pressure to move was heightened by a declining post-Vietnam workload, general military cutbacks, and a 1975 fire which caused $600,000 damage to several buildings and support craft. A review committee recommended in November 1975 the activity be shifted across the river to the NAS and proposed 1 October 1976 as the completion. Inadequate facilities and delays in approving relocation funds pushed the move back to 1980.30 The second problem was proposed construction of the Thomas Johnson Memorial Bridge, intended to carry Maryland Route 2 across the Patuxent. Navy officials

insisted the bridge be sited along the reservation’s southern shoreline to avoid crossing “the principal flight path (164⁰ T)” of aircraft “dropping our stores into the river.” This location was opposed by Maryland highway officials. After prolonged negotiations, the squabble was finally resolved in the Navy’s favor.31 The third and most persistent problem dealt with public complaints of alleged damage to commercial fisheries from underwater explosive tests. Station scientists cooperated in studies undertaken by the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (1944-1945, and 1973) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1948–1953). Finally, NOLF produced its own study in 1969. No study was able to prove that “the annual kill of valuable fish exceeds a fraction of the take of one commercial license.” Popular criticism was not significantly deflected by these scientific findings. The underlying cause of the fish kill was caused by a badly botched test shot carried out in 1978 in the Virginia area of Chesapeake Bay by another Navy activity. The shot produced a massive fish kill during a period when the bay fishing industry was more depressed than normal. The Navy suspended explosives testing in the bay and its tributaries until October 1979. But the level of such testing out of Point Patience never recovered and all such tests were stopped in October 1980.32 This combination of pressures, misfortunes, and intrusions from NRCS, finally doomed the testing facility. A CNO order effective 1 May 1982 deactivated both the NSWC Solomons Facility and its NSWC Detachment, Solomons—thus ending thirty-five years of service to the naval ordnance establishment. Diving operations were transferred to the NSWC Fort Lauderdale site. The Solomons divers had established an outstanding reputation in tasks ranging from ordnance location to salvaging downed aircraft and evaluating experimental diving suits for general Navy application. Because all members of the small civilian staff who desired continued employment could be accommodated, the disestablishment was accomplished without recourse to reduction-in-force.33 Some highlights of post-NOL activities at the reservation are of interest here. The former East German Navy missile corvette Hiddensee, built in Russia in 1985, had operated in the Baltic Sea until the German reunification in 1989. She was declared surplus and sent to America for evaluation. When she arrived at Solomons, she was thoroughly examined by U.S. Navy staff who were experts in Russian technology and equipment. She was then given to the Battleship Massachusetts Memorial in Fall River, Massachusetts. On 28 January 1993, a fire struck, its caused determined to be an electrical short. It destroyed a multi-use, two-story wooden recreation building at NRCS. In 1995, administrative control of the reservation was transferred from NAS Patuxent River to Naval District Washington. The following year, the reservation was redesignated Naval Station Washington, Solomons Complex.34

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

MAP 1. U.S. Naval Mine Warfare Proving Ground, Solomons, Maryland, 1 January 1943. Adapted from “Map of U.S. Naval Mine Warfare Proving Ground, Solomons, Maryland, Showing Conditions on Jan 1, 1943,” Public Works Division, Potomac River Naval Command, P. W. D. No. 7266. Drawn by Fran Younger of the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons.

MAP 2. U.S. Naval Mine Warfare Test Station, Solomons, Maryland, June 1947. Adapted from “Map of U.S. Naval Mine Warfare Test Station, Solomons, Maryland, Showing Conditions on June 30, 1947,” Public Works Division, Potomac River Naval Command, PRNC Drawing No. 2521. Note major modifications to Home (Third) Cove area as compared to Map 1. Drawn by Fran Younger of the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons.

FIG 1. Aerial ordnance delivery test conducted by Solomons Branch, Naval Ordnance Laboratory, circa 1974. Support is being provided by P–3 Orion aircraft from Patuxent River Naval Air Test Center.

FIG 2. Aerial survey photo taken 24 April 1938, showing the “Ghost Fleet,” ex-German vessels confiscated when America entered World War I and laid-up at Point Patience from 1927 until 1941. This photo covers the entire area later acquired for the NMWTS. Courtesy of the National Archives.

Military Collector & Historian

FIG 5. Mine test tanks, 13 September 1945. U.S. Navy photograph.

FIG 3. Aerial view of NMWTS, 18 September 1943. Courtesy of the National Archives.

FIG 6. Technician testing Gatling gun during evaluation of PBR for Vietnam deployment, 1970. U.S. Navy photograph.

FIG 4. Aerial view of NMWTS, 2 April 1944. Courtesy of the National Archives.

FIG 7. Multi-barrel grenade launcher undergoing evaluation for Navy use, 1969. U.S. Navy photograph.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

FIG 8. Station test support vessel IX-307, USS Brier. U.S. Navy photograph.

FIG 11. Diver entering recompression chamber, 1971. U.S. Navy photograph.

FIG 9. Station test support vessel, YSD-72, seaplane wrecking derrick. U.S. Navy photograph.

FIG 12. View of EMPRESS facility and target vessels, 1973 or 1975. U.S. Navy photograph.

Notes

FIG 10. Navy divers on ordnance recovery mission, 1974. U.S. Navy photograph.

1. This section is based on information in Capt. J. S. Cowie, R.N., Mines, Minelayers and Minelaying (London: Oxford U. Press, 1949), 9–167; Gregory K. Hartman, Weapons That Wait: Mine Warfare in the U.S. Navy (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1979); Robert C. Duncan, America’s Use of Sea Mines (Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak, 1962); Michael F. Perry, Infernal Machines: The Story of Confederate Submarine and Mine Warfare (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State U. Press, 1965); Ellis A. Johnson and David A. Katcher, Mines Against Japan (Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak, 1947); Frederick M. Sallager, Lessons from an Aerial Mining Campaign (Operation “Starvation”), U.S. Air Force Project RAND Report R–1322 (Santa Monica: RAND, 1974); Tentative Instructions for the Navy of the United States Governing Maritime and Aerial Warfare, May 1941 (Washington:

Military Collector & Historian

GPO, 1941), 34; David F. Trask, The War With Spain in 1898, Macmillian Wars of the United States (New York: Macmillian, 1981), 96–102, 133–136, 200–201, 253–254, 287, 292–293, 307; Read Adm. Daniel P. Mannix III, “The Great North Sea Mine Barrage,” American Heritage, 34 (April-May 1983): 36–47; Lt. Cdr. Buford Roland and Lt. William B. Boyd, U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance in World War II (Washington: Dept. of the Navy, BuOrd, 1954), 156–171; Cdr. Malcolm W. Cagle and Cdr. Frank A. Manson, The Sea War in Korea (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1957), 142–151, 164, 218–221, 527–528; Rear Adm. C. F. Horne III, “New Role for Mine Warfare,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 108 (November 1982): 34–40 (hereafter Proceedings); Rear Adm. Brian McCauley, “Operation End Sweep,” Proceedings, 100 (March 1974): 19–25; Capt. J. Huntly Boyd, “Nimrod Spar: Clearing the Suez Canal,” Proceedings, 102 (February 1976): 18– 20; F. Clifton Berry, Jr., “U.S. Navy Mine Warfare: Small but Not Forgotten,” Armed Forces Journal International, 117 (October 1977): 38–39, 43; Lt. Cdr. Thomas G. Donaldson, “Meandering Mines,” Proceedings, 110 (September 1984): 137; and U.S. Navy Training Publications Center, Naval Ordnance, Vol. I of Naval Ordnance and Gunnery (NavPers 10797–A) (Washington: GPO, 1957): 317–326. In the U.S. Navy, mine activities are centered in the Commander, Mine Warfare Command, headquartered in Charleston, SC. This command is responsible to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) for mine warfare readiness, training, tactics, and doctrine for active and reserve components. Established 1 July 1975, the command recommends overall policies for mining and mine countermeasures; recommends mission requirements for surface ships, submarines, and aircraft in mine warfare; and monitors R&D programs to introduce new mine warfare developments. J. M. Braeckel, ACOS for Admin., Commander, Mine Warfare Command to author, 12 May 1987. This section is largely based on “A History of the U.S. Naval Mine Warfare Test Station, Solomons, Maryland, 1945,” in Bureau of Ordnance, “Miscellaneous Activities,” Vol. 1 (Washington: n.d.), Guide No. 132a, Navy Department Library, Washington Navy Yard (WNY) (hereafter “Station History”). See also Duncan, America’s Use of Sea Mines, 94. For a history of the Reserve Fleet lay-up site, see Merle T. Cole, The Patuxent “Ghost Fleet,” 1927–1941 (Solomons, MD: Calvert Marine Museum, 1986). “Station History,” 3–8; Bureau of Ordnance, “Underwater Ordnance,” Vol. 9 (Washington: n.d.), Guide No. 78, Navy Department Library (hereafter “Underwater Ordnance”). “Station History,” 10–13. For details of the division of underwater ordnance and countermeasures responsibilities, see “Underwater Ordnance” and Office of the CNO, “Mine Warfare in the Naval Establishment” (Washington: n.d.), Guide No. 15, Navy Department Library (hereafter “Mine Warfare”). Bureau rivalries and organizational evolution are summarized in Norman Friedman, U.S. Naval Weapons (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press),11–12, and Joseph P. Smaldone, History of the White Oak Laboratory, 1945–1975 (Silver Spring, MD: Naval Surface Weapons Center, 1977), 104–105, 182. “Station History,” 13–15, 17–18, 22; Commandant, Potomac River Naval Command, “Narrative History of the Potomac River Naval Command” (Washington: 1975), 52–55, 59–60, Guide No. 135, Navy Department Library; “Command Historical Report, Potomac River Naval Command, 8 December 1941–31 December 1958,” in Naval Historical Center, Operational Archives, WNY (hereafter “PRNC History”); Maryland Historical Society, Manuscript Division, War Records Collection, MS 2010, “Installation History Questionnaire for the Mine Warfare Test Station” (hereafter “MHS Questionnaire”). Data from the questionnaire were used to

prepare the society publication Military Participation, Vol. 1 of Maryland in World War II (Baltimore,MD: Maryland Historical Society, 1950), 214–215 (hereafter Military Participation). Dates given in text for establishment and redesignation are from Navy Department, Admin. Office, Publications Division, Navy Department Bulletin Cumulative Edition, 31 December 1945 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1945), 6, 9. Date of redesignation differs from that given in “Station History.” First names of officers are not given in sources. Names have been reconstructed by reference to Register of Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the United States Naval Reserve, 1 July 1944 (Washington, DC: GPO,1944), 573 (hereafter USNR Register). 6. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), Chesapeake Division, Real Estate Divivision, WNY, Basic Land File (1), NOLTF Solomons. For Navy real estate acquisition policy, see U.S. Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II: History of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the Civil Engineering Corps, 1940–1946 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1947), 111–112. 7. “Station History,” 15–19; “MHS Questionnaire.” 8. “Station History,” 19–22, 23–24. 9. Ibid., 223–23, 24–26; Military Participation, 215. “PRNC History” states (60) that the ATB was disestablished 15 March and placed in caretaker status 19 March, as does “Station History.” Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, “A History of the Amphibious Training Command, U.S. Atlantic Fleet,” Guide No. 145a, Navy Department Library, 9, 67–69, gives dates as 6 February (deactivation) and 1 April 1945 (closure). See also Military Participation, 188, and Merle T. Cole, Cradle of Invasion: A History of the U.S. Naval Amphibious Training Base, Solomons, Maryland, 1942–1945 (Solomons, MD: Calvert Marine Museum, 1985), 21. 10. “Station History,” 32–114. 11. Ibid., 134–217. 12. 12. Ibid., 218–226, 236–239; USNR Register, 427; War Dept., U.S. Engineer Office, “Regulations Governing Navigation in the Patuxent River at Point Patience and Sandy Point, Maryland,” Washington, 9 April 1943, in File H-n2, “U.S. Navy—Mine Test (NOL, NSWTC, Pax River),” Calvert Marine Museum, Solomons, MD (hereafter CMM File H-n2). Most of the material in this section concerning LTA craft is based on information provided to the author by Roy A. Grossnick, Naval Aviation History and Archives, WNY, in a letter dated 26 September 1984. The information was extracted from “Annual Squadron History, Airship Utility Squadron One and Airship Anti-Submarine Training Detachment, Atlantic Fleet” 1945,16–29; Naval Airship Training and Experimental Command, “They Were Dependable”—Airship Operations in World War II, 7 December 1941 to September 1945 (Lakehurst, NJ: Naval Airship Tng. and Exp. Cmd: NAS, April 1946), 28; and CNO, Monthly Status Report of Naval Aircraft, 30 April 1945 (Washington, DC: OPNAV, 1945), 66. 13. “Station History,” 226–249. 14. Ibid., 27–29. 15. Copies of the 1946 public works projects estimates are in CMM File Hn–2. The author was unable to locate a document explaining the difference in estimated civilian personnel needs, i.e., 667 vs. 856. 16. Cagle and Manson, The Sea War in Korea, 125–126. 17. Navy Department, Bureau of Ordnance, Annual Report of the Bureau of Ordnance to the Secretary of the Navy, Fiscal Year 1948 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1948), 35, in Naval Historical Center, Operational Archives. 18. “Station History,” 251–252; “MHS Questionnaire”; Military Participation, 215. 19. Naval Ordnance Laboratory Report, 8 (September 1951): 5 (hereafter USNOL Report); Military Participation, 215. Exact date of disestablishment varies in other sources. “PRNC History” gives the date as 1 July 1947. In CMM File H–n2 is a PRNC “Map

of Former U.S. Naval Mine Warfare Station, Solomons, Maryland, Showing Conditions on June 30, 1947,” which contains the notation, “Disestablished 1 Sept. 1947.” 20. Sources provide disparate dates for NOLTF establishment. Date in text is from “U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory Test Facility, Solomons, Maryland, Command Inspection Briefing Conducted 27 March 1968,” 1, in CMM File H-n2 (hereafter “Command Briefing”) and NOL Report, 16 (December 1959), 6–7. This date also appears in “NOLTF Solomons Checks into the ‘Why’ of Ordnance,” in The Tester (9 September 1960), copy in CMM File H-n2. Date of 2 May 1947 is cited in “Command Historical Report, NOL, 1959,” 24, Operational Archives (hereafter “NOL Command History”) and Navy Department, Admin Office, Pubs. Div., Navy Department Bulletin: All Ships and Stations Letters, JanuaryJune 1947 (Washington, DC: Navy Department Admin. Office, 1947), 90 (hereafter AS&SL). The Naval Shore Activity Summary in CMM File H-n2 gives the date as 27 May 1947. In all probability, NOLTF Solomons was established 1 July 1947, pursuant to the AS&SL notice. The other NOL field activities are listed in NOL … 1949, Annual Report (15 February 1950): 12, and Smaldone, History of the White Oak Laboratory, 21. 21. “Command Briefing,” 1–2; “NOL Command History, 1959,” 24; USNOL Report 16 (December 1959): 6–7; Commander, NOL to Chief, Bureau of Weapons, 25 February 1960, subj: Naval Ordnance Laboratory Test Facility, Solomons, Maryland, additional operational areas rquired, in NAVFAC Basic Land File (2), NOLTF Solomons. 22. This section is based on the following materials in CMM File H– n2: AS&SL, January-June 1948, 34–35; “News Release, Solomons Lab, May 10, 1948” (date handwritten); Washington Evening Star, 12 January 1950; “Laboratory at Port Hueneme,” Military Engineer, 42 (March-April 1950); Julie F. Streets, Office of the Historian, NAVFAC, Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, CA, to Ralph Eshelman, Director, CMM, 6 August 1974; SecNav to All Ships and Stations, 19 December 1949, subj: U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Solomons, Maryland, redesignation of; Naval Shore Activity Summary, Annex—Family Housing. See also Navy Department, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Navy for FY 1948 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1948), 67, and “Command Briefing,” 1. 23. “Command Briefing,” 2; USNOL Report 16 (December 1959): 6–7. 24. “Command Briefing,” 1, 3; Transmittal and Acceptance of Military Real Property (DD Form 1354) dated 24 March 1965, in NAVFAC Basic Land File (2), NOLTF Solomons. 25. “Command Briefing,” 4, 5–7; “NOL Command History, 1966,” 2–4; “1967,” 2; and “1969,” 2; Oak Leaf, NOL installation newsletter (September 1972) 1, 4–5; On the Surface, installation newsletter of Dahlgren Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center, (21 July 1978): 1, 3; (3 November 1968): 1; (15 December 1978): 3; and (4 April 1980): 1; Smaldone, History of the White Oak Laboratory,181; post-publication update by CMM staff. In the mid-1960s, the Navy completely revised its material organization, replacing the venerable (if not venerated) bureau system with “systems commands.” Under this realignment, BuWeps was disestablished on 1 May 1966, to be replaced by Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) and the Naval Ordnance Systems Command (NAVORD). 26. “Metes and Bounds Description of a Parcel of Land to be Transferred from the U.S. Navy, the Department of Defense, to the U.S. Coast Guard, the Department of Commerce located at U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory Test Facility, Solomons, Maryland” (undated), and 5th Coast Guard District, Civil Engineering, “U.S. Coast Guard Station, Solomons, Maryland, Proposed, Plat,” approved 17 March 1966, in Basic Land File (2), NOLTF, Solomons, NAVFAC Chesapeake Div. The undated atlas Naval District Washington Real Estate Maps, published by that office, contains a map of the Solomons reservation with a notation 6.3 acres were transferred to the Coast Guard on 29 May 1967, with a zone around Third Cove (“Area 2”) hatched to indicate the parcel.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

Chesapeake Division advised the author the map is an old one and has not been updated since 1967. None of the Navy or Coast Guard offices contacted could clarify the proposed land transfer. CDR Howard Tawney, Fifth Coast Guard District Planning officer opined in a 24 January 1985 conversation with the author the proposal was related to the need to replace the Piney Point Station. That station was closed in 1977 and its function transferred to a new station at St. Inigoes in St. Mary’s County. 27. This section is based on the following materials in CMM File H–n2: “Wecome to NRCS!”, Military Living (July 1977): 22; “Navyman’s Paradise,” Salvo (December 1969): 5; Planning Associates, Education and Recreation Consultants, Recreation and Camping Activity, Naval District Washington, D.C. (West Hempstead, NY: Planning Assocs, 6 May 1968). 28. From correspondence in NSWC Files, “Solomons, U–46, Missions, Functions” (hereafter File U–46); “Relocation of NOLTF, Solomons: Information on” (hereafter Relocation File); and “Solomons Facility—Relocation to NAS, Patuxent River, Correspondence File” (hereafter Relocation Binder). 29. Smaldone, History of the White Oak Laboratory, vii, 120, 134, 156. 30. From correspondence in File U–46, Relocation File and Relocation Binder. See esp. Commander, USNOL to OPNAV, 19 September 1969, subj: NOLTF Solomons, Maryland; information on, in Relocation Binder. See also Oak Leaf (August 1975): 1, 3. 31. Commander, USNOL to OPNAV, 19 September 1969, subj: NOLTF Solomons, Maryland; information on, in Relocation Binder; Eugene E. Kluth, Underwater Systems Assessment Div., Field Support Br. (Code 445), NSWC, White Oak, 19 October 1984. 32. For fish kill research, see Maryland, Board of Natural Resources, Dept. of Research and Education, Effects of Underwater Explosions on Oysters, Crabs and Fish (Solomons Island, MD: July 1948), Pub. No. 70; U.S., Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Effects of Naval Ordnance Tests on the Patuxent River Fishery (Washington, January 1955), Special Scientific Report: Fisheries No. 143; USNOL, Explosive Tests of Underwater Ordnance by the Naval Ordnance Laboratory in Maryland Tidal Waters (White Oak, MD: 11 Feb. 1969), NOL TR 69–33; and Oak Leaf (September 1973): 1, 4–5. The quote is from Commander, USNOL to OPNAV, 19 September 1969, subj: NOLTF Solomons, Maryland; information on, in Relocation Binder. Information on the moratorium is from Kluth, 19 October 1984, and NAVMAT Instruction 8500.1, 12 October 1978, subj: Underwater Explosion Testing in Navigable Waters of the Chesapeake Bay Region, and On the Surface (1 August 1980): 4–5. 33. OPNAV to Chief of Naval Material, 13 April 1982, subj: Detachment disestablishment. Regarding accomplishments of facility divers, see Oak Leaf (May 1971): 3; (September 1971): 2; (March 1975): 4–5; (11 June 1976): 8; and On the Surface (12 May 1978): 2; and (1 August 1980): 4–5. 34. Post-publication information update by CMM staff.

Military Collector & Historian

Private, wilderness campaign

Compagnies franches de la Marine, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Canadian Styleâ&#x20AC;? dress, mid-eighteenth century

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

Compagnies franches de la Marine, “Canadian Style” dress, mid-eighteenth century Plate No. 965

n the eighteenth century, French soldiers posted in towns such as Quebec, Trois-Rivieres, and Montreal, as well as in large forts, usually wore European uniforms. But this dress changed as one went into the deep wilderness and into isolated western outposts. Also, as European military costume was proving almost useless for military expeditions going far away through forests and wild prairies, officers and men took to wearing the “short capot, mitasses, breechclouts, and deerskin shoes [mocassins]. This practical and light equipment [and dress] gave them a great advantage over enemies dressed in the European fashion” as a relative of Ens. Villiers de Jummonville later wrote.1 This remarkable costume was initially a result of the adaptation of the early French male settlers in Canada to the North American environment. Above the waist, they usually wore a wool cap, a cloth capot, which was basically a hooded coat that came in basically three lengths (short, medium, and long) and a with a sash fastened around the waist much like sailors. The garments bellow the waist were borrowed from the First Nations: the breechclout was a piece of rectangular cloth, which went between the legs and slipped over a waist-belt; the “mitasses” were long leggings of sturdy cloth or soft leather that were also attached to the waist-belt; the mocassins were the soft leather shoes without heels. This Canadian clothing, used in the fur trade and even for farm work, proved most suitable and, with variations, became the standard for militiamen going on military expeditions and raids in the wilderness.2 With regard to the French regular troops stationed in Canada, the Compagnies franches de la Marine, a gradual adaptation occurred from the 1680s when officers and men realized that Canadians were ideally dressed for North American wilderness raid warfare. It was really the only practical way to dress for going hundreds of kilometers deep into the forests or far away prairies by canoes and on foot. European style uniforms were nevertheless sent on to small western forts up until the early 1730s. Canoes would leave Montreal laden with uniforms for soldiers posted at Michilimackinac and as far the Miamis in Illinois. After Gilles Hocquart became Intendant [head of the civil administration] of New France in 1731, he put a stop to this expensive practice. In the future, soldiers who garrisoned such outposts would leave Montreal with their regulation European uniform and then procure replacement Canadian style clothing from their fort’s trade store. It seems that the soldiers in such outposts preserved their European style uniform for more formal occasions. However, for everyday life, patrolling in the wilderness and ordinary duties, soldiers wore the comfortable Canadian style clothing as show in this plate.3

The colors of the everyday ‘Canadian’ dress are not definitively known. “Regulation capots” and capots made with old uniform are mentioned, which seems to indicate these capots were often grey-white, possibly with blue cuffs, a logical choice in terms of logistics as well as the easy identification of troops on campaign. In the first half of the eighteenth century, there appears to have been a type of rank structure on this type of campaign clothing as the capots of officers were noted as being laced, while those of the enlisted men were plain. For soldiers of the Compagnies franches de la Marine, grey-white military forage caps with a blue turn-up (this may have varied with, for instance, some being all dark blue) made an ideal headdress. Both officers and men were armed with muskets, tomahawks, and several knives (usually one at the waist, one hanging down the chest and one fastened to a garter). Hangers and pistols might also be carried. The accouterments would have been the buff waist belt, the nine rounds’ belly cartridge box whose dark brown leather flap bore, by the 1740s, the stamped royal arms, a regulation powder horn with brass dispenser, a strong linen shoulder bag with its buff leather belt, and various items such as a cooking pot or tent poles. Only officers had gilt gorgets.4 This plate is reproduced from the original 1983 painting with the kind courtesy of the National Historic Sites Branch of Parks Canada. Art: Francis Back Text: René Chartrand 1. Philipe Aubert de Gaspé, Les Anciens Canadiens (Montreal: Fides, 1970), 343–344. Aubert de Gaspé was the great uncle of Joseph de Coulon de Villiers de Jummonville, the Compagnie franches officer killed by George Washington and his men in 1754. 2. Francis Back, “S’habiller à la canadienne”, Cap-aux-Diamants, No. 24, Hiver 1991. The finest and best illustrated study on the subject of traditional male costume in early French Canada. 3. Rapport de l’Archiviste de la Province de Québec (Quebec City, 1922), 198–199, shipments of uniforms to Michilimackinac (9 June 1722) and Miamis (27 July); Archives Nationales (France), Colonies (henceforth: AC), B, Vol. 72, f. 391. Minister to Beauharnois and Hocquart, Marly, 12 May 1741. 4. Archives Nationales du Québec à Montréal, Documents judiciares, boîte 06–MT1–1/64, dossier mai-juin-juillet 1754. Contains many references to soldiers standing guard at Fort Duquesne in their “capot d’ordonnance” (regulation capot). Boîte 06–MT1–1/161 contains the record of a trial concerning deserters at Fort Sandoskey [Sandusky] which mention capots made from old regulation uniforms and mentions one soldier who had left his uniform to be repaired by one a soldier-tailor named Lacouture at Detroit. On weapons and accoutrements, see: René Chartrand, French Military Arms and Amor in America 1503–1783 (Woonsocket, RI: Mowbray, 2016), chapters 5 and 7.

“MarPat” (Marine Pattern) USMC Camouflaged Utility Uniform, 2002

52 Military Collector & Historian

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

“MarPat” (Marine Pattern) USMC Camouflaged Utility Uniform, 2002

Plate No. 966

n some occasions, the U. S. Marine Corps has been derided by critics for just “making do with Army cast-offs,” but, in fact, the Corps has often embraced new technologies, and has been at the forefront of innovation. Examples, such as amphibian tractors, landing craft, field packs, and various small arms, abound throughout its history. The use of camouflaged uniforms is also a “USMC-First,” in that during the early years of World War II, the Marine Corps issued green/brown reversible camouflaged combat-utility uniforms to its parachutists, raiders, and scout-snipers and by the end of the war, all Marines were wearing this same camouflage pattern on their ponchos, canvas helmet covers, and shelter halves. Marines continued to use this green-brown/brown-tan pattern through the Korean War and into the early 1960s, when the familiar “leaf pattern”—an all-Department of Defense style— replaced it. During the Vietnam War, some Marines adopted the familiar “Tiger Stripe” camouflaged combat uniforms and, by the late 1970s, the Corps had adopted a three-color camouflaged uniform, of “rip-stop” material. In the 1980s, the Corps transitioned to a utility uniform in the all-service “Woodland Camouflage Pattern” developed by the U.S. Army’s laboratories in Natick, Massachusetts. Col. Donna J. Neary, USMCR (Fellow 1971), detailed this uniform in her series of uniform plates that accompanied the 1983 Marine Corps Uniform Regulations. When Marines deployed to the Persian Gulf area for Operation Desert Shield in 1990, various patterns of desert camouflage replaced the woodland camouflaged combat uniforms. By the successful end of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Marines were wearing an array of camouflaged uniforms and, once again, the Marine Corps History and Museums Division captured all of these variants in a celebrated uniform plate, also painted by Colonel Neary. However, by the mid-1990s, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, as well as other Marines, feared the Corps was losing its unique identity through its use of “All-DoD” (Department of Defense) combat/utility uniforms. Indeed, Marines had always worn a distinctive uniform that had set them apart from the other services and this was an integral part of their esprit de Corps. A search soon began for a new unique camouflage pattern for the combat/utility uniform. Inspired by a pattern of digital pixels that the Canadian Forces had developed for their combat uniforms, the Marine Corps’ Systems Command at the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Virginia, undertook a program to test various mixtures of miniature square dabs of color instead of using the flowing blobs of colors that had been used previously, and nearly universally, by the world’s military organizations. This new approach had been in experimental development by the U.S. Army as early as the 1980s. The Marine Corps exhaustively tested a number of different combinations of colors and pixel arrangement before deciding on the final two versions—one for “Woodland” environments, and one for a desert setting. Incorporated into the pattern is a miniature of the Marine Corps’ “Eagle, Globe & Anchor” insignia and the U.S. Marine Corps holds a patent on the design. Concurrent with the inauguration of the new uniform, the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Permanent Marine 1

Corps Uniform Board decided to publish a painted illustration, showing the variations of the uniform in garrison and in the field. The Project Officer approached the staff of the Marine Corps Museum for assistance, but while the museum staff could advise on the series of steps needed to produce such an illustrated plate, they were completely focused on the requirements to build the new National Museum of the Marine Corps at Quantico, and could not afford the time necessary to take an active role in the project. Worse, Colonel Neary was recuperating from an injury she had sustained while on active duty, and was on “medical hold” prior to retirement. However, and most fortunately, a talented graphics artist, Sgt. John M. (“Jack”) Carrillo, was found who could undertake the project. Stationed at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego, Carillo was temporarily assigned to Quantico. During autumn 2002, Sergeant Carillo conferred with Colonel Neary and began painting the figures. The project officer had already formulated a matrix for the five figures in the plate, and had arranged for the temporary loan of all the correct uniforms, accouterments, and weapons. During this process, and just as Neary had done in 1983 and 1991, he selected Marines who would represent the entirety of the Corps—in terms of both gender and ethnicity—and arranged for them to pose in the uniform plate. Each figure also represented the basic military occupational specialties into which Marines are grouped, and the resulting uniform plate is often mistaken for one of Neary’s plates. The 2002 “MarPat” plate is yet another example of the Marine Corps’ official uniform depictions, in a tradition that dates back to 1859. 8

Art: John M. Carrillo Text: Kenneth Smith-Christmas

1. Kenneth L. Smith-Christmas, “The Marine Corps Utility Uniform of World War II,” MC&H, 43, no. 3 (Winter, 1991): 170–177. 2. Charles Melson and Paul Hannon, Vietnam Marines, 1965–73 (Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 1992). 3. An example of the “Tigerstripe” pattern is on the uniform worn by the former director of the Marine Corps History and Museums Division, Col. John W. Ripley, now on display in the Vietnam Gallery of the National Museum of the Marine Corps at Quantico, Virginia. 4. Col. Donna J. Neary, USMCR, U.S. Marine Corps Uniforms, 1983 (Washington: GPO, 1983). 5. Col. Donna J, Neary, USMCR, U.S. Marines in the Middle East, 1991 (Washington: GPO, 1991). 6. Sgt Anthony Fusco, “West Point Explores Science of Camouflage,” Press Release, West Point Directorate of Public Affairs & Communications, USMA, West Point, NY, 3 June, 2010.

7. U.S. Patent US6805957 B1. 8. Corp. Ethan E., Rocke, “Rifle—Check, Ammo—Check, Drawing Pad and Pencils?” Press Release, Marine Corps Recruiting Command, Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA, 25 October 2002.

Royal Navy Officers’ Dress Uniforms, 1814–1815

54 Military Collector & Historian

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

Royal Navy Officers’ Dress Uniforms, 1814–1815

Plate No. 967

his plate is from an oil painting showing HMS Dragon off Tangier Island, Virginia, in June 1814. This 74-gun ship-of-the line having a crew of 640 men was part of the British squadron cruising in Chesapeake Bay under the command of CAPT Robert Barrie enforcing the blockade. She was the 11th bearing that name in the Royal Navy, launched on the Thames in 1798, served with distinction off the coast of Spain and came to the Chesapeake Bay area in 1813 taking part in various minor operations over the next year—for instance raiding the small town of Lower Marlborough in June 1814 to burn large quantities of American stores there. At that time the British squadron also included smaller vessels, a few of which were among some eighty-five small American ships that were either destroyed or taken as prizes. At right is the armed schooner HMS St. Lawrence and the tender Catchup-Little, both previously captured American schooners. In the background at right, Tangier Island is visible in the distance with the British temporary naval base that included Fort Albion (marked by the flag) with barracks and other buildings; it was a good anchorage and became a busy center of operations for British warships patrolling Chesapeake Bay. HMS Dragon thereafter went up to Halifax and, in August and September, with three other warships and ten troop transports, successfully went up the Penobscott River and captured Castine, Maine.1 In the longboat at the center is Captain Barrie (holding a spyglass) and a lieutenant wearing the Royal Navy’s dress uniform. A sub-lieutenant is the more distant longboat at left. On March 23, 1812, new dress regulations for the officers of the Royal Navy were announced. These gradually became known as ships arrived from Britain, but it was probably not until 1813 that the changes had been implemented. The new dress uniforms were as follows:2 Admirals: dark blue coat with white cuffs and lapels edged with gold lace and also the buttonholes on the lapels and cuffs were laced with gold. The cuffs had two laces for a rear admiral, three laces for a vice admiral, four laces for an admiral. Dark blue collar edged with gold lace all around. Gold epaulettes with one silver star for a rear admiral; two silver stars for a vice admiral; three silver stars for an admiral. Captain and commander: dark blue coat with white cuffs and lapels, alterations to rank designation which were now: gold epaulets on both shoulders, but the two grades of captains were to have, for “Three Years Post Captains … a Silver Crown over a Silver Anchor,” for “Captains under Three Years Post … the Silver Anchor without the Crown. The Epaulettes of Commanders to be plain.”

Lieutenant: same as captains and commanders, but without any lace and with the addition of a plain gold epaulette on the right shoulder. Sub-lieutenants had same uniform for all occasions, which was the undress uniform of lieutenants: dark blue coat with blue cuffs, lapels, and collar, all edged with white piping a plain gold epaulette on the right shoulder. Midshipmen wore a plain dark blue coat with a rectangular collar patch for all occasions. All had white waistcoat, breeches, and stockings with black shoes with gilded buckles. Gold-laced bicorn hats bearing a black silk cockade. All also wore the new gilt button stamped with the crown over the fouled anchor in an oval. The painting was commissioned from the artist by the city of Barrie, Ontario, which bears this name since 1833 in commemoration of Sir Robert Barrie (born in St. Augustine, Florida, in 1774 and died at Swarthdale, England, in 1841) who was the senior British officer on the Great Lakes after the War of 1812. He returned to England in 1834 and was knighted for his services, was promoted rear-admiral in 1837, and in 1840 was created KCB (Knight Companion of the Order of Bath).3 Art: Peter Rindlisbacher Text: René Chartrand 1. Halton Stirling Lecky, The King’s Ships (London: Horace Muirhead, 1913), II: 264–265; HMS St. Lawrence, 12 guns, was the former American privateer Atlas as per Faye M. Kert, Privateering (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2015), 47–48 and J. J. College, Ships of the Royal Navy (London: Greenhill, 2003), 274. Catch-up-Little is not listed in the Royal Navy or as a privateer. It was used by Barrie as a flagship tender. 2. John Mollo, Uniforms of the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars (London: Hugh Evelyn, 1965), 29–33; W. E. May, The Dress of Naval Officers (London: National Maritime Museum, 1965), 5, 26, 40. MUIA plate 319 (1968) “Royal Navy, 1814, Full Dress” by Roy Manser showed a physician, a vice-admiral, a surgeon, and side-back view of a captain. This present plate shows front views of a captain and a lieutenant as well as an accurate reconstruction of the ships and the coastline. 3. Thomas L. Brock, “Barrie, Sir Robert, ” The Dictionary of Canadian Biography, online at: http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio.php?id_ nbr=3232.

Military Collector & Historian

THE MESSAGE CENTER CMH HEADQUARTERS

FROM THE PRESIDENT Our membership has spoken! I want to announce that Steve Baule and Gordon Jones were each elected by you to serve another three-year term on the Board of Governors. For Steve, this will be his third term as a Governor and for Gordon this will be his second term. Our Company bylaws limit a governor to no more than three elected terms. Jerry Roxbury has been elected as our First Alternate to the board and will step in should an opening occur on the Board of Governors during the year. Please make sure you meet and congratulate them at the 2018 Annual Meeting in May. During the fourth quarter of 2018 you will be asked to vote to fill four governor positions. Should you have an interest in pursuing more involvement with the Company, including running for a Governor position, please reach out to our Administrator Dave Sullivan or any of our officers or Governors so we can explain the requirements and expectations being a Governor entails. The 2018 Annual Meeting will soon be held so it is time for you to plan your attendance. Registration materials for the meeting were mailed out to you on 12 January 2018. The meeting will be held in Nashville, Tennessee on 17â&#x20AC;&#x201C;20 May 2018. There will be the option to sign up for some pre-meeting field trips as well to augment our meeting events. The Sheraton Music City Hotel, which is conveniently located near a number of cultural and recreational areas of interest, will serve as our hotel for the meeting. Located within ten miles of our hotel include The Hermitage â&#x20AC;&#x201C; home of U.S. President Andrew Jackson, the Tennessee State Museum which has a wonderful collection of military artifacts, the Grand Ole Opry, and the Country Music Hall of Fame. The Nashville International Airport is only a five minute drive away and our hotel offers complimentary round trip shuttle service between the airport and our hotel. The Board of Governors wants to increase the capabilities of our website and possibly expand how we get information and publications delivered to you. As we wrestle with declining numbers of members, we are looking at new ways to attract new members and maintain existing members. Having a technologically useful website with great content is one of the methods we believe we can become a more valued source to our members. In an effort to determine what features and options you value, we have circulated a short survey on different website capabilities, and possibly the digitalization of publications to ascertain what is most important to you. Initially the survey was emailed to all of our members who have provided the Company with their email address. About 40 percent of our total membership electronically completed the survey. In an effort to reach everyone, we mailed a copy of the survey to members who

did not complete the electronic version of the survey in the hope of receiving an even larger level participation by you. Our plans are to use your input to determine what actions we need to take to enhance our digitalization and website design efforts. I will also report the results of the survey at our Nashville meeting in May. Please complete the survey and tell us your preferences. In closing, your Board of Governors is working hard on a number of fronts to enhance the value of your membership in the Company. Please complete and return the survey, and participate in regional chapter meetings in your area. If there is no regional chapter nearby, get involved to start a chapter. We will help you. Lastly, come to our Annual Meeting in Nashville. It should be a great time and I look forward to seeing you then! Craig D. Bell, President

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

A Dragoon on Trial: The Quality of Military Justice and the Court-martial of Pvt. Percival Lowe Will Gorenfeld The near-perfect Dragoon Pvt. Percival Lowe would not forget the hot evening of 23 July 1850 at Fort Kearny. The day started off well enough, with Lowe participating in Sunday’s traditional guard mounting. Wearing the impressive dark blue dress uniform, with its tall yellow collar, tails, and polished brass buttons; a tall black shako, topped by a horsehair-plume and with a dancing yellow braid; polished leather accouterments, saddle, valise, and weapons in proper order and oiled, Lowe reported for inspection. After guard mounting, Lowe took his horse into the stable, hung his polished saddle, blanket, and valise onto a rack. He then changed into his fatigue uniform and reported for guard duty. Not in his wildest imagination did he suspect that before the coming of dawn he would be arrested and placed in double irons. Following a bugler’s sounding of “Tatoo” (lights out), all activities at Fort Kearny ceased and guards took up their posts at vital locations about the installation. That summer evening Lowe was stationed as a guard at the stable. All quiet was the night, save the company’s mules that were crowded unhappily into a corral located outside of the stable, and began a loud chorus of braying. When Lowe went on guard duty for his 2300 to midnight shift, both stable and adjacent granary appeared to be locked. In his book, Lowe took some pains to describe the large stable at Fort Kearny. It was “two hundred feet long and forty feet wide, built of sod, with three doors at each end and one in center of building on each side—open windows on both sides about thirty feet apart.” As if arguing his defense in the court-martial, Lowe writes, “Of course no sentinel could get around fast enough to watch these openings in this large building.” He informs us in 1850 the post suffered from the temptation of soldiers to desert to the gold fields of California.1 As a youth, Lowe was an avid reader of books that romanticized and glorified the West, and he sought to be “on the great plains of the West, live among Indians, buffaloes, and other big game, and the mountaineers and trappers of whom [he] had read so much,” at the same time he expected “good board, clothing, medical attention … [and the prospect] of going to the ‘land of gold.’”2 Thus, he pursued adventure, first on the high seas, and then decided to explore the Great Plains. On 16 October 1850, having lied about his age enlisted in the 1st Dragoons. Lowe’s vision of the West reflected those of his contemporaries, among whom were well-heeled lads such as Mathias Baker of Connecticut; James and Charles Hildreth of New York; Thomas Russell of Tennessee; Francis Clarke of England; and English immigrant, James

Bennett of Avon, New York; Mathias Baker of New Jersey; and countless privileged young men who longed to be with the Army as it explored and coursed through the West.3 After leaving the Army, Lowe would pursue a successful career in both business and Kansas politics. Subsequently, in his later years, he would author Five Years a Dragoon, published in 1906, one of the best written books describing the life of an enlisted man in the antebellum Army. Don Russell, having written the introduction to the book’s 1965 reprint, found the original version to be unique in its reference to the 1849-1856 period, which has received scant attention by prior historians. In addition, Russell observed Lowe’s book is one of only a few authored by an enlisted soldier during the period prior to the Civil War.4 Lowe detailed all manner of exciting moments he experienced during his years with the 1st Dragoons, including a detailed account of a desertion which occurred at Fort Kearny in modern-day Nebraska. However, he excluded any mention of the disappearance of a fellow soldier along with two horses resulting in his own incarceration and court-martial. Lowe additionally excludes any mention of the inhumane treatment he received while awaiting a hearing.5 As good as the book is, Lowe’s failure to include any mention of his court-martial is only one of a number of events that are entirely omitted. An example of omission is his close relationship with Bugler Langford Peel where Lowe praises him throughout the entire account, conveniently neglecting to mention the fact Peel had abandoned his wife and child to become a fierce gunfighter known as Farmer Peel, living in Virginia City and other towns in the west, a historical aspect chronicled in Mark Twain’s Roughing It. It turns out Peel was later gunned down in Montana by his best friend.6 Upon completion of his training at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, Lowe was assigned to serve in Company B of the 1st Dragoons stationed at Fort Kearny. At the time of Lowe’s enlistment in the 1st Dragoons, Bvt. Maj. Robert Chilton commanded the company. A native Virginian, Robert Chilton graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1837, finishing near the bottom of his class. Following his graduation, Chilton received a brevet second lieutenant’s commission in the 1st Dragoons. After being initially posted at Fort Leavenworth, Chilton served at a variety of Army frontier stations, ultimately gaining a brevet major’s commission in 1847 for his efforts at the Battle of Buena Vista during the war with Mexico. At the outset of the Civil War, Chilton would resign his U.S. Army commission. He then received an appointment to

complicity in the theft, the major would then let him off easy. If, however, he persisted in claiming his innocence, Major Chilton stated he would not grant him a separate trial and he would make it as hard as possible for Lowe.11 Gratton himself was never captured; but his three the rank of brigadier general in the Provisional Army of pursuers recovered the two stolen horses. They were the Confederate States. Chilton served primarily as Gen. also able to regain possession of Lowe’s saddle and valise Robert E. Lee’s chief of staff and was later blamed for strapped to his recovered mount. losing the “lost orders,” which fell into federal hands just Antebellum Courts-martial prior to Lee’s engagement at the Battle of Antietam.7 During the period before the Civil War, too many officers After a year’s service in the 1st Dragoons, Private Lowe believed that enlisted personnel were the scum of the was fast becoming one of the company’s best soldiers and earth. Or, as the Duke of Wellington was quoted as saying well liked by all. Most likely, Lowe was surprised when of his army at Waterloo, “I don’t know what affect these he was placed under arrest and subject to a court-martial. men will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they frighten In his written response to the charges and specifications, me.” Cases such as the 1849 court-martial of Sgt. John Lowe stated after coming off guard duty he reported to the Fowler was fresh in the minds of the officers at Fort guardhouse in order to get some sleep before returning Leavenworth. to guard duty later in the evening. He could not sleep, In June 1849, Sergeant Fowler led an escort for Bvt. Col. however, and suffering from the effects of loose bowels was Aeneas McKay who was traveling from Fort Leavenworth driven to visit the company sinks (latrines).8 Concurrently, to Fort Kearny to pay the troops who were stationed during this same period an incident occurred involving there. Along the route. the sergeant told the members of one Pvt. William Gratton9 whole stole two horses and the escort, you will “have plenty of money”—perhaps as saddles from the stable and proceeded to desert. Perhaps, much as $150,000—if we hold a “killing match” this very being a good judge of horseflesh, one of the horses Gratton night. He explained he and the other mutineers would decided to steal was a first rate sorrel chestnut belonging kill the officers in the “match,” steal the payroll, abandon to the unfortunate Private Lowe. Then again, there is the the wagons on the plains, and then flee to Independence, possibility that Lowe was planning to desert as well. In Missouri.12 any event, Gratton rode off into the darkness with both his Most soldiers, likewise, in the ranks of the antebellum own and Lowe’s horse. Army ranks feared their leaders. As the afore mentioned Major Chilton testified at Lowe’s court martial hearing enlisted dragoon’s account shows, swift military discipline to the fact he (Chilton) was awakened at some point tended to radically cut the corners of justice: between the hours of 0100 and 0200 by the corporal of If ever a burlesque was successfully got up, it is in garrison the guard who advised Chilton the stable and granary had where a regimental court martial is to be held. … Although been broken into, two horses were stolen, and Gratton the recorder is presumed to have an eye to the interests of the and Lowe were missing. The major then proceeded to the government, yet in six cases out of seven he does not appear stables and confirmed this evidence. At this time Lowe to recognize that the prisoner can have any interests to be approached Chilton and told him he had been at the jeopardized. … company sinks at the time the corporal of the guard had [The prisoner] has the privilege of calling any witness in his been looking for him.10 defense, but if the witnesses are privates they are so generally In his declaration, Lowe stated he was briefly at the overawed by the haughty, arrogant bearing of the court, as sinks and while leaving the latrine area, he heard the to be little service to him. The prisoner is not allowed to commotion arising near the stable, hurriedly dressed, speak in his defense, but can address the court through the advocate, or reduce to writing what he may desire to offer in snapped on his belt, causing his cartridge box to fall off his defense.13 the belt to the ground. Fully dressed, Private Lowe ran to the scene of commotion and confronted Major Chilton. Major Chilton was a cruel martinet, and Maj. Benjamin After hearing Lowe’s weak excuse, Chilton ordered Lowe Beall of the 1st Dragoons was not mean spirited.14 Wellarrested and slapped the private in double irons. According liked by his men, Major Beall could be exceedingly to Lowe’s written statement three days after his arrest, generous toward them. An example of his generosity Chilton spoke to him. The private pleaded his explanation is seen in a case described by Pvt. William Antes, who of the interceding events. If the horses were stolen during served under Beall while at Fort Tejon, California. Private the time he was on guard duty, he heard nothing of the Antes wrote when “[a] Circus Came one day … . Our thief’s (Private Gratton) activities and therefore had no Colonel, who had been drinking and was pretty mellow, knowledge of them because of the loud grating noise made said that every Soldier should go to the show, and all who by the braying mules. In response to Lowe’s explanation, had no money he would supply.”15 The Colonel tended Chilton advised Lowe the deserter Gratton would soon to go to bat for his men, while strict officers such as Maj. be captured, and if Lowe would immediately confess his George Blake and Capts. Robert Chilton, John Davidson, 58

Military Collector & Historian

James Carleton, and William Gardiner seemed to courtmartial nearly every soldier in sight. In stark contrast, the easygoing Beall disliked keeping any members of his command in the guardhouse. Private Antes remarked Beall “did not want any prisoners and was more than once on the point of burning the Guard house down.”16 In this article we witness an example of Beall’s even-handed sense of military justice. Lowe, having to wait six months for his trial, thus was denied a speedy hearing and a semblance of a hearing, and a finding of guilt before punishment was imposed. And many enlisted men, though, were even less fortunate. Some officers simply meted out punishment in the field without even bothering to convene a court-martial. In 1852, dragoon Capt. James Carleton forced three drunken enlistees to walk back to camp roughly tied behind wagons. One man fell, was dragged for a mile and a half, and died from his injuries.17 Dragoon Sgt. James Bennett recorded an enlisted man who said he could not go further on a march was stuck down by the sword of his commanding officer and left to die. Bennett also wrote of another officer who, without any justification, seriously injured a recruit with his sword.18 A dragoon in Utah Territory reported seeing a lieutenant, for no apparent reason, knock a soldier senseless with the butt of an army revolver, and then laugh, “One less dough boy.”19 Dragoon Lt. Cave Couts voiced his disgust for an artillery officer who chained a handcuffed prisoner to a caisson by an iron band around his waist, and forced him to walk behind it from Chihuahua to Santa Fe.20 Lt. Philip Thompson of the 1st Dragoons was known for losing his temper while drunk and physically abusing his men. The unfortunate trooper W. H. Frost lost his proper distance from others in the ranks, and Thompson barked at him “to close up,” so rattling Frost he actually increased his distance from the men. The infuriated Thompson grabbed the recruit by the collar, jabbed him with the point of his saber, and threatened him in “severe terms.” An Army court of inquiry convened and found Thompson innocent of using unreasonable force, though it censured him for harsh language.21 This would not be an isolated incident for Thompson. On the march to New Mexico Territory from Fort Leavenworth in 1851, the captain, intoxicated, shot and wounded a soldier. The Army ordered him to pay the victim $600 for his wounds and to join the Santa Fe temperance society, but Thompson “broke the pledge so soon that the society expelled him.”22 Maj. George Blake, short of officers in distant New Mexico, had tolerated Thompson’s addiction, but Thompson’s inebriated performance even at an 1855 court-martial finally brought the Army to dismiss him from service.23 By the time of the U.S.-Mexico War, the Army had made valiant strides in eliminating inhumane correction of enlisted personnel.24 But one dreaded form of punishment persisted—“bucking and gagging,” in which

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

the gagged offender’s hands and legs were tied and knees were pulled up between his arms, with a pole slid in the crook of his bent knees locking him in that painful position.25 A contemporary Army song, “Buck and Gag Him,” encapsulated the systematic abuse inflicted upon common soldiers, sometimes for the most minor misstep: The treatment they give us, as all of us know, Is bucking and gagging for whipping the foe; They buck for malice or spite, But they are glad to release us when going to fight. A poor soldier tied up in the hot sun or rain With a gag in his mouth till he is tortured with pain, Why, I’m blessed if the eagle, we wear on our flag, In its claws couldn’t carry a buck and a gag.26

Gen. Winfield Scott prohibited the practice of bucking and gagging in 1853.27 But other horrendous punishments remained available for officers’ use. Deserters often not only received fifty lashes “well laid on with a rawhide whip,” but also had the letter “D” branded on the left hip, had their head shaved, and were banished from the camp and service with a humiliating drumroll.28 Sgt. James Stevenson of the 1st Dragoons relates such an incident, which he witnessed while stationed at Jefferson Barracks in 1855: [T]he troops were drawn up in lines forming three sides of a square, to witness the punishment that might deter them from deserting. It was the duty of the officer of the day to superintend the execution of the sentences. A gun carriage was placed on the fourth or vacant side of the square so that all the troops could see, and each prisoner in his turn was lashed firmly to the wheel, having been previously stripped to the waist. The drummer of the infantry and the buglers of the cavalry administered the stripes with a rawhide; and a more brutal exhibition I have never witnessed. When a blow was struck which did not seem hard enough, the officer of the day would not count it, so some of the prisoners received sixty stripes instead of fifty. When a man fainted under his punishment, restoratives were administered, and if the surgeon thought he could still stand it, he received his full allowance. In one case, the surgeon pronounced a man physically unable to stand the punishment after being restored from a fainting fit, and he was led off with about thirty stripes. When cut down from the wheel, their backs were rubbed with brine which, although said to be for their good, caused them dreadful suffering, if we could judge by their groans and cries. After a few days’ medical treatment, the letter “D” was pricked into their skin with India ink, and, with shaven heads, they were marched around the parade ground, the soldiers standing in line to witness the performance. The drums and fifes played the “Rogues’ March,” and a file of infantry, with bayonets at a charge, marched behind the culprits, and conducted them some distance beyond the limits of the barracks. Thus ended the inhumane and humiliating spectacle; I can truly

Military Collector & Historian

say that, instead of filling the hearts of the soldiers with fear and exercising a restraining influence over them, it only filled them with hatred for a service in which such brutal punishment was practiced, and produced a strong desire to get out of it in any way possible. I do not blame the officers, for they were, as a rule, humane and gentlemanly in their treatment of the soldiers. It was the fault of the system, and I am happy to say that it has since been done away with.29

Even without such tactics a callous officer could enrage his men. In one extreme example of such several members of Company F of the 1st Dragoons beat up Maj. George Blake in the Taos Plaza.30 More typically, disgruntled soldiers resorted to the extreme remedy of desertion,31 while those who stayed might take out their resentment upon sergeants and corporals.32 The Lowe Court-martial On 15 January 1851, nearly six months after his arrest, the Lowe court-martial panel convened at Fort Leavenworth. Lowe was charged with abandoning his post to facilitate Private Gratton’s theft of federal property and desertion. Bvt. Lt. Col. Benjamin Beall presided over the sevenmember court and Capt. Charles Lovell acted as its judge advocate.33 Major Chilton was initially assigned to sit as a member of Lowe’s court-martial panel. Lowe objected to his presence in this capacity and the panel removed Chilton. The major, however, served as a key witness for the prosecution. Chilton testified he was awakened by the corporal of the guard at around 0130 and Chilton was told that Private Lowe was absent from his post and that he could not locate the private; Chilton ordered the corporal to have the stable examined for evidence of a possible desertion and found that the stable and granary had been broken into through the use of force; upon further examination the major discovered Private Gratton was not in the barracks, and two horses were gone. Chilton ordered Sgt. William Barr, with Cpls. John Cuddy and Moses Cook to pursue the deserter; they were unable to capture Gratton. Chilton also testified he was angry that about two weeks prior to Gratton’s desertion, three of his best men—a sergeant, bugler, and farrier—had stolen horses and caught “gold fever.” Lowe later wrote he suspected a civilian aided Gratton.34 Chilton testified the corporal of the guard reported to him Pvt. Lowe had finally returned to his sentry station, out of breath and could neither realistically explain the cause of his absence nor the absence of his horse, equipments, pistol, and valise. He presented hearsay evidence the corporal of the guard had stated to him. Lowe told the corporal he was in the company sink (privy) at the time of the theft. The major testified Lowe’s clothing was later found inside

of a valise strapped to his recovered saddle. Additionally, he attested his male servant found Lowe’s cartridge box lying in a garden near the stable and the company sink.35 The major attested he did not believe Lowe’s excuse for leaving his post, and came to the conclusion Private Lowe was intent on deserting with Private Gratton and arrested Lowe, “hoping that the severity [of the punishment] might prevent further thefts.”36 On cross examination, Major Chilton testified he did not suspect Lowe would desert, his character as a soldier being “excellent”; he was a fine horseman; and possessed an excellent temperament. But having recently lost “three of his best men” to desertion, he worried “California [gold] fever” was causing even good soldiers to dissert.37 1st Sgt. William Barr, the next witness for the prosecution, stated he was awakened around 2330 by the corporal of the guard on the night of the stable break-in. The corporal told Barr some of the company mules had broken loose, Barr roused a couple of teamsters and told them to catch the runaway mules. Soon afterwards the corporal returned and told Barr the stable had been broken into and that Lowe was absent from his post. The sergeant proceeded to the stable and discovered two horses missing. When questioned with respect to petitioner’s character, Barr stated Private Lowe “has been good, he did his duty pleasantly, thoroughly and efficiently … and had no reason to think he wanted to desert.” The sergeant gave testimony that the lock to the stable door was pried and then broken by use of a steel, pry-bar-like, marlinspike. Sgt. Simon Hooper testified he had been awakened after midnight and was told the stable and granary had been broken open and two horses taken. The sergeant attested Lowe’s conduct was “good and so considered by every man in the Company.”38 Pvt. Edward O’Meara39 gave testimony he had been on sentry duty at the stable when a previous desertion took place and did not hear the deserters enter and steal three horses. The private stated this was due to the racket made by the nearby mules, “It was very easy for them [the horses] to be taken out without the sentries knowing about it, either time.”40 Lowe called Bugler A. G. Bostick as his first witness, who testified that, between 29 July and 17 October 1850, Lowe had been bound in irons on his wrists and a ball and chain on his leg. Bostick, acting as corporal of the guard when the company marched to Fort Leavenworth in October 1850, mounted Lowe on a mule and rode beside of him. When the company came into camp at the end of the day’s march, Bostick was ordered to chain Lowe’s ankles together. The wrist irons remained in place until 13 January 1851.41 Lowe’s final piece of oral evidence came in the form of testimony offered by Pvt. William Drummond, who attested after three horses had been stolen, to prevent further thefts, both he and the quartermaster sergeant routinely slept armed in the stables. Oddly, neither Lowe,

the judge advocate, nor the court bothered to question Journal of the Company of Military Historians 61 Drummond as to whether either of them was sleeping in the stable on the night of the desertion.42 While there was evidence Gratton stole Lowe’s horse, saddle, and valise, evidence was speculative that Lowe made any effort to desert with Gratton. Rather, what we Notes have here is a case involving a good soldier, well-liked by 1. Percival Lowe, Five Years a Dragoon, ed. Don Russell (Norman: his comrades, who may have briefly deserted his post and University of Oklahoma Press, 1965), 36. Lowe’s frustrated commanding officer unjustly blamed 2. Ibid., 5. him for Gratton’s. To make matters worse, like Herman 3. Will and John Gorenfeld, Kearny’s Dragoons Out West: The Birth of the United States Cavalry (Norman: University of Oklahoma Melville’s Billy Budd, Major Chilton decided to make an Press, 2016), 15. example of Lowe by keeping him cruelly bound in irons 4. Lowe, Five Years, vii. for nearly six months to serve as a warning to other men in 5. Ibid., 365 n15. the company of what happens to deserters and to sentries 6. Robert DeArment, Deadly Dozen: Forgotten Gunfighters of the who fail to stop them.43 Old West (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2012), 4; Major Beall and the other members of the court saw Will Gorenfeld, “John Bull Shot Down his Gambling Pal, Soldierthrough all of this, realizing that Private Lowe was a good Turned-Gunfighter Langford Peel,” Wild West (April 2011). 7. George W. Cullum, Biographical Register of the Officers and soldier who did not neglect his duty and, in any case, had Graduates of the United States Military Academy at West Point, been unjustly punished by his commanding officer on a New York, since its establishment in 1802 (Washington, DC: suspicion of a violation of duty. On 18 January 1851, the GPO, 1879), I: 695. court announced it was not about to punish a good soldier, 8. Under military law at this time the accused was barred from found him not guilty, and ordered him to return to duty. testifying in person but was allowed to file his written testimony. Stephen Benet, A Treatise on Military Law and the Practice of Two months later, Chilton promoted Lowe to corporal and Courts-Martial (New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1868), 133; Courtin the years which followed the well-liked Lowe served his martial of Private Percival Lowe, Court Martial File HH 6, Entry tour of duty, rising to the rank of first sergeant. After his 15, Records of the Judge Advocate General’s Office, RG 153, discharge, Lowe obtained employment in charge of Army NARA; Court-martial of Private Percival Lowe, Lowe’s written opposition to the charges. wagon trains. Conclusion In 1859, Lowe demonstrated that he was not immune to gold fever and traveled to Colorado Territory to participate in the Pikes Peak gold rush. The tale of his long, unexplained delay in the company sinks does not hold together. Could this young, adventure craving, well-liked young man have planned to desert that evening with Private Gratton but got cold feet? Lowe’s unexplained delay between the time he went off duty at midnight and not being found until nearly two hours later, plus his missing horse, suggests Lowe may well have initially intended that hot night to depart for California with Gratton. Though Lowe, most certainly, had to have harbored animosity toward Major Chilton for his mistreatment, he did not express such in his book. To the contrary, Lowe describes Chilton as a capable and honorable leader of troops.44 Quite possibly, he said kind things because Chilton had repeatedly promoted him; and then, after Lowe’s discharge, his former commanding officer likely helped him land lucrative Army contracts such as civilian wagon master. Whatever was his reason to forgive the major, Lowe was a big enough man to let bygones be forgotten and went on to a successful career. Lowe left behind a sugar coated book, both describing his military service and those whom he served with. Nonetheless, it is a delightful book to read.

9. Irish-born William Gratton enlisted in 1848 in New York. 10. Court Martial of Private Percival Lowe, 41, 67. 11. Lowe’s written opposition. 12. Court-martial of John Fowler, RG 153, Records of the Judge Advocate General’s Office, Entry 15, NARA, Court-Martial Files GG 76. 13. Anonymous, Recollections of the United States Army: A Series of Thrilling Tales and Adventures by an American Soldier (Boston, James Monroe and Co., 1845), 15. James Hildreth likely wrote this book. See William and John Gorenfeld, Kearny’s Dragoons. 14. For more on Beall’s personality see George Stammerjohan and Will Gorenfeld, “Dropped from the Rolls: The West Point Years of Benjamin Beall: 1814–1818,” MC&H, 54, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 16. 15. William Antes, “Recollections of a[n] Old Soldier,” Beinecke Library, Yale University, 39. 16. Antes, “Recollections,” 36. 17. Skelton, An American Profession of Arms, 272; Records of the Judge Advocate General, Proceedings of U.S. Army Courts-Martial, 1809–1890, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C. (NARA) HH–161. Carleton to Sumner, 25 February 1852, Letters Received by Headquarters, 9 Military Dist., 1852, Microcopy 1102, roll 3, Record Group 393, NARA; and Courts-Martial, Carleton Court of Inquiry, NARA, HH–161. 18. James A. Bennett, Forts and Forays: A Dragoon in New Mexico 1850–1856, ed. Clinton E. Brooks and Frank D. Reeve, forward by Jerry Thompson (Albuquerque, University of New Mexico, 1996) 80–82. 19. Bennett, Forts and Forays, 104. 20. Cave Couts, Hepah, California! The Journal of Cave Johnson Couts From Monterey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico to Los Angeles, California During the Years 1848–1849, ed. Henry F. Dobyns (Tucson: Arizona Pioneers’ Historical Society, 1961), 19. 21. War Department, Adjutant General’s Office, General Order number 63, September 27, 1842.

Military Collector & Historian

Francis Back René Chartrand

22. Will Gorenfeld, “The Taos Mutinyof 1855,” New Mexico Historical Review, 88, no. 2 (Summer 2013): 287; Katie Bowen to Father, 2 May 1852, Katie Bowen letters to her to Father & Mother, Arrott Collection, New Mexico Highlands University. 23. A detailed account of the Taos Plaza revolt of 1855 and the courts-martial which followed may be found in Gorenfeld, “The Taos Mutiny of 1855,” 287; William B. Skelton, An American Brotherhood of Arms, the Army Officer Corps 1784–1861, (Lawrence, Kansas: The University Press of Kansas, 1992), 188. 24. Skelton, Profession of Arms, 268. 25. Ibid., 272. 26. Edward A. Dolph, Sound Off! Soldier Songs (New York; Cosmopolitan Books, 1929), 395. 27. War Department, Adjutant General, Orders and Circulars: General Orders No. 3, 27 January 1853. 28. Bennett, Forts and Forays, 38. 29. Stevenson Journal, 16. 30. Gorenfeld, “The Taos Mutiny of 1855.” 31. Skelton, Profession of Arms, 275. 32. See e.g., an account of a private of the Regiment of Mounted Rifles, who casually rode up to his sergeant at Fort Stanton, New Mexico, and shot him dead. James E. Farmer, ed. Dale F. Giese, My Life with the Army in the West (Santa Fe: New Mexico, 1967), 39. 33. Court Martial of Lowe. 34. Lowe, Five Years, 36. 35. Major Chilton seems to have had two slaves living with him while serving at Fort Kearny. This is evidenced by a 10 September 1849, letter written by Henry Turner, a recently retired officer in the 1st Dragoons, to Lt. John Love at Fort Kearny, stating “our friend Chilton at Fort Kearney, requesting me to purchase for him a negro woman. I have now the prospect of complying with his request after many unsuccessful efforts. In the event of my succeeding I am directed by C. to send the woman to you, to be forwarded to Fort K. I learned but a few days ago that there was at Booneville a woman for sale achieving the description required by C. and I have written to a friend there to buy her and have requested him to ship her to you at Fort Leav[anwot]th. Should she arrive of course you will have been informed of C.’s wishes in relation to her.” John Love Collection, Indiana Historical Association. 36. Testimony of Major Chilton, 41. 37. Lowe’s written defense, 67. 38. Testimony of Sgt. Hooper, 55. 39. The well-educated Pvt. Edward O’Meara was born in Ireland and immigrated to the United States in 1848. He obtained employment as a law clerk in New York, but when the plains called he obeyed, causing him to enlist in the dragoons. Lowe, in Five Years a Dragoon, at page 39, mentions that O’Meara “possessed one of the most genial, kindly and attractive temperaments I have ever known.” Farrier Edward O’Meara was placed in custody following the Taos Plaza riot and, upon release, transferred to Company B. He twice reenlisted, seeing combat with the regiment in the Civil War; he was honorably discharged in 1867. 40. Testimony of Pvt. O’Meara, 61. 41. Testimony of Bugler Bostick, 64. 42. Testimony of Pvt. Drummond, 65. 43. Lowe’s court-martial, prisoner’s defense, 67. 44. See e.g., Lowe, Five Years, 105, 128.

he Montreal artistic and historical community was saddened to learn of the passing of one of its most noted members on 5 October 2017, after a long illness in his fifty-eighth year. To Company members, he was a talented artist that, from the 1980s, contributed some fourteen Military Uniforms in America (MUIA) plates. He also wrote two articles and contributed occasional illustrations for Military Collector & Historian (MC&H). Nearly all these publications concerned the material culture of seventeenth and eighteenth century New France, an era that he knew extremely well as a result of the significant amount of time Francis spent (one day a week, every week, for many years) performing scholarly research upon early records at the Archives Nationales du Québec à Montréal. All types of early costumes were of passionate interest and not just military uniforms; civilian clothing of early settlers for both genders of all ages, sailor’s clothing, garments of aboriginals as well as livery clothing anywhere. To this were added all sorts of arms, architecture, and almost anything that would be commonly seen centuries ago as some of his MUIA plates testify. Francis was born into an illustrator’s world as his father was Frédéric Back, an artist awarded two “Oscars” among many other honors for his outstanding achievements in the illustration of animated films. Recognizing their son’s remarkable talent, Francis was sent to the art academy in Basel, Switzerland, to learn the basics of professional illustration work. Francis always worked as a freelance illustrator. The illustrations he produced for the Company, Parks Canada, and many museums were often the very first visual renderings reconstructed from written descriptions and were hailed as outstandingly accurate as well as being on the leading edge of the illustrator’s art. Much, if not most of the aforementioned detail regarding the rich background and accomplishments of this very talented man is very likely to remain unknown by most Company members. Francis was also a master storyboard artist for cinematic productions, as well as having worked in various capacities on more than one hundred film and television productions. In addition to all of this, Francis Back taught art at universities in both Canada and Taiwan. The Marguerite Bourgeois Museum in Montreal honored him with an exhibition of his works in 2012. Rest in Peace, mon cher ami.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

Capt. George T. Balch, U.S. Army Ordnance Department, and his 1861–1862 Letter Book Charles Pate

n 2 October 1858, Sam Colt complained to the secretary of war about the “tardy” manner in which his pistols were being inspected and received by government inspectors, saying they were frequently called away to do other work and when they were at his factory they typically did not put in full days of effort.1 Although it took him a while to compile a response to this complaint, the officer in charge of the inspection, Capt. William A. Thornton, refuted the specifics of Colt’s complaint and did so in a very convincing fashion.2 Thornton’s response made it clear he had extensive records for the inspection work done under his supervision as well as that done by his predecessor in the position, Capt. Robert H. K. Whiteley. Furthermore, such records were maintained for some time, for after the Civil War then Colonel Thornton was able to provide the chief of ordnance with very specific information on inspections done during his service as “Inspector of Contract Arms” in 1864–1865. Thornton died in April 1866 and was succeeded as Inspector of Contract Arms by Maj. Julian McAllister. When in April 1867 it was no longer necessary to continue this inspection office, McAllister was told to send the inspection records to the New York Arsenal for storage.3 Unfortunately, it appears almost all of the records related to small arms inspection were subsequently lost. To the author’s knowledge, the

FIG 1. Capt. George T. Balch. U.S. Army photo.

only records that have survived from Civil War inspecting officers of contract small arms are individual original copies of letters and reports the inspecting officers sent to Ordnance Department facilities, such as the Springfield Armory, and the chief of ordnance, and two “letter books.” One of these books was used by Whiteley in 1861–1862 and for a short time later in 1862 by Thornton. It is now in the regional branch of the National Archives in New York City. The other letter book was used by Lt./Capt. George T. Balch from 26 October 1861 to 10 March 1862. It, and Balch’s subsequent service, is the subject of this paper.4 Before continuing, it would be appropriate to define what is meant by “letter book.” In the context of this paper, a letter book was a book containing record copies of letters sent by an originator. Usually these were books containing “fair copies” of the letters but they might also be bound “press copies.” A “press copy” is a copy of a written document made in a copying press, which transfers some ink from the original to another sheet of paper, usually thin onion-skin or tissue paper. The copy is then read from the other side of the sheet. Most often these press copies are barely usable if at all and, consequently, if time and clerical resources were available “fair copies” were manually transcribed in blank ledgers provided for that purpose. A “fair copy” is a neat and exact (and easily readable) copy of an original document that is copied either from the original or from a press copy of the original. Both the Whiteley/Thornton and Balch letter books are, fortunately, fair copies. The Balch letter book measures approximately 13 inches in length and 10.5 inches in width. The book contains a name index and 317 pages with the first letter dated 26 October 1861 and the last dated 10 March 1862. The original spine is missing but the worn original covers are with the volume. The previous owner, the noted U.S. martial arms collector and researcher Anthony Daum, had the volume rebound in leather with “Letters” on the upper spine and “ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT” on lower spine in gilt letters. After Daum’s untimely death the book was sold by Cowan’s Auctions in October 2014. The catalog description listed the book as containing “hand-written journal entry records of orders, shipments, etc., from the Springfield Arsenal during the Civil War.” Given Balch’s office was located at the armory and some of the book’s contents, the auction description is understandable. However, George Balch was at the armory primarily as a matter of convenience and this book is a record of his correspondence as an inspecting officer of contract ordnance rather than one dealing with Springfield Armory

manufacture of arms.7 It should be noted here this was after the far more experienced Major Hagner had already visited and made numerous suggestions to the same end. The tasking given to Balch at this time, and to Hagner and Whiteley, reflect two things about Ripley. First and foremost, he had great confidence in Balch. This confidence appears to have been well placed from the standpoint of technical competency and energy. From the standpoints of trust and loyalty it is less clear. Second, Ripley did not display good personnel management skills, at least at this time, for on more than one occasion he failed to establish clear lines of authority and responsibility and, in fact, assigned the same duties to two of these men.8 On 5 August, Hagner advised Ripley of Balch’s arrival and Baich had been briefed on all work north and east of New York City.9 It is not clear Hagner had any inspecting officer responsibilities for arms under formal contract in these areas, but apparently Ripley intended Balch to have such responsibility for arms (and other ordnance stores) as on 6 August he telegraphed the lieutenant telling him to “urge all contractors forward. Work nights and put on more hands ... .”10 Either Ripley intended Balch to do exactly that or his directions to him were ambiguous, as on 17 August Balch reported on a visit he had made to the Sharps Rifle Company even though Ripley was well aware that Whiteley was in charge of the inspectors FIGs 2 & 3. The 1861–1862 George T. Balch letter book, cover and already working at the Sharps Company.11 On 22 August, spine. Max Guenthert collection; photo courtesy of Paul Davies. Ripley advised Whiteley of Balch’s report of the visit and operations.5 An astute and knowledgeable Swiss collector instructed him to inspect carbines Balch had said would 12 who now lives in Japan, Max Guenthert, noted the book on soon be ready. Perhaps Ripley recognized his redundant the Internet, recognized its importance to American Civil tasking of these three officers, as on the following day he War contract arms collecting, especially to the collecting wrote Major Whiteley as follows: I desire that you will make some arrangement with Maj. of martial Colt revolvers, and bid accordingly. Hagner and Lt. Balch with regard to the inspection of Prior to and at the start of the Civil War, contract contract supplies that will suit the convenience of all. If you arms for the U.S. Army were procured primarily by the cannot find it convenient to attend to this business yourself, commanding officer of the New York Arsenal and that by increasing your force of sub-inspectors, you will please officer served as the Inspector of Contract Arms. In inform these gentlemen of the fact and request them to attend August 1861 that officer was Whiteley and he continued to the inspection of the supplies that each may contract for.13 in this role for some arms bought under formal contract.6 If this meeting occurred, it did not change responsibilities However, due to the press of business brought about for the Sharps contracts and at least temporarily did not by the war and the need to buy all available serviceable change responsibilities for those at the Colt’s Patent arms that could be found, Chief of Ordnance James W. Firearms Company. But on 18 September, Ripley wrote Ripley assigned Maj. Peter V. Hagner as the Ordnance to Whiteley, informing him he did not think the major’s Department agent for procurement of ordnance stores on duties at the arsenal would permit him to inspect as the open market with his station in New York City. On 3 rapidly as required by the significantly increased number August 1861, Ripley told Hagner it was important he be of Colt revolvers that were to be supplied and, therefore, in New York City at all times to purchase arms and other he had assigned the duty to Balch. On the same day ordnance stores as they arrived and that Lt. George T. he wrote to Balch, forwarding copies of letters to and Balch was being sent to him to assist with other duties that from Colt regarding deliveries and explaining what might take him away from the city. Hagner was to restrict was expected and promised. Balch was to ensure the his efforts to the New York City area. Balch was told the expectations of the department were met. This was to be a same thing and his place of duty would be Springfield, temporary assignment after which Balch was to return to Massachusetts. On the same day Ripley advised George the Ordnance Office and resume his duties as an assistant Dwight, the civilian superintendent of the Springfield to the chief.14 Armory, Balch was to visit Springfield soon and he was Balch probably used Springfield Armory clerical to confer with Dwight regarding expediting the armory’s assistance initially, but on 19 August he asked for the 64

Military Collector & Historian

authority to hire a clerk at $3 per day.15 Ripley, who wanted Balch to return to the Ordnance Office as soon as possible, answered on the 23 August, stating that he was authorized to do so on a temporary basis but only for as long as necessary.16 However, due to the press of wartime business and the shortage of experienced ordnance officers, Balch had to remain on this duty for over eight months. By the end of the period he had employed four clerks, had received goods valued at two and a quarter millions of dollars, and had dealt with more than forty suppliers.17 As his letter book shows, he clearly was a very busy man. There is no indication in Ordnance Department records Balch, who was promoted to captain on 1 November 1861, had anyone to assist him in this work other than clerks.18 He probably hired his first clerk, C. O. Chapin, shortly after receiving the above approval, but as noted above, the first entry in the letter book was not made until 26 October 1861. The book’s subsequent entries concerned all manner of ordnance stores. Just as examples from the first few pages, Balch corresponded with the following concerns: James Ames, Chicopee, Massachusetts—cannons O. Bradley, Worcester, Massachusetts—forges E & G Fairbanks, St. Johnsbury, Vermont—stirrups and bits W & E Graley, Troy, New York—cavalry saddle trimmings, which were to be sent to J. B. Baker & Co. of Boston, W. H. Wilkins of Springfield, W. Crowley of Troy, New York, and J. S. Read of Boston. James R. Hill, Concord, New Hampshire—harnesses J. G. Chase, Springfield, Massachusetts—packing boxes

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

important small arms duty was the inspection of Colt revolvers. That work had the personal interest of Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan, then the most influential officer in the U.S. Army. Regarding those arms, Ripley wrote him on 20 September: Referring to the enclosed copy of a letter from Gen. McClellan to the Secy. of War, (which is sent for your information only), and to the telegram from Saml. Colt and reply thereto, I wish you to visit Colt’s Armory, frequently, and to spend as much time there as you can spare in order to secure the delivery of all the pistols possible to the U.S. government. If it is possible to convert the machinery and appliances there now engaged in the manufacture of Navy pistols to that of Army pistols of the new model, it should be done so as to increase the deliveries of the latter kind. But if not, then we should have the entire product of both kinds. Let all the pistols you can get be sent on here every two or three days to Washington Arsenal, and report frequently as to the progress made in supplying them. It will be well for you also to call as often as you can at Ames’ works, Chicopee, and hasten the deliveries of sabers, swords, and other articles he may be making for this Dept. Report each shipment from either place by letter.20

The only other revolver under contract to the Ordnance Department at this time was the Savage, which was far inferior to the new Colt Model 1860 Army revolver. Balch was also responsible for inspection at Savage but in addition to being less desirable, production of the Savage was not great while Colt was promising to soon Wilkinson & Cumming, Springfield, Massachusetts— deliver at the rate of one thousand pistols per week.21 harnesses, slings for Smith carbines, etc. Army leadership had initially resisted the use of volunteer Balch also obtained harnesses from E. Gaylord, Chicopee, cavalry but the disaster at the Battle of First Manassas, Massachusetts, but of more general interest, Gaylord was and other reversals, showed the error in this position. one of several suppliers of accouterments and many of the Consequently the cavalry force was expanding greatly and entries in the book related to procurement and inspection rapidly but there were very few suitable arms available of those stores. In fact, one factor making this book so for its use. From all the author can tell through Ordnance significant is it contains Balch’s letters to his inspectors; Department records, the weapon most in demand during letters that can be found nowhere else. As one example the period of Balch’s service as an inspecting officer was regarding cartridge boxes, on 31 October 1861 Balch the revolver and Colt was the only source for pistols of wrote J. L. Wilder in Hartford, Connecticut, instructing army (.44) caliber.22 him regarding the poor sewing (machine sewn rather than While there are many Colt-related letters in this volume hand sewn) of the pocket flaps of infantry cartridge boxes not available in any other source known to the author, made by Smith, Bourne & Co. Balch wrote him again on the same is true for other suppliers. Balch also inspected 6 November and said the acceptability of machine sewing Smith carbines being made by the Massachusetts Arms depended upon the type of stitch and machine used. He Company. As one example of a significant letter for that said the stitching done by Cook & Co. (of New Haven) was company, on 17 December 1861 Capt. Balch wrote to acceptable but the stitch used by SB&Co (of Hartford) Ames’ agent, T. W. Carter, and ordered four hundred would come out if cut or broken in one place.19 Smith carbines to be delivered as soon as possible, saying Balch apparently hired some of his inspectors directly this lot of carbines, which Carter had reported ready for stores such as leather goods. But for small arms he for inspection, would form part of a larger order and an obtained them from among the Springfield Armory’s inspector would be sent in a few days.23 most experienced workmen, just as Thornton and However, the letters related to Colt and Sharps are Whiteley before him had done. Balch was responsible for more important to later events in Balch’s life and his the inspection of some swords and sabers but his most relationships with other Ordnance Department officers.

Military Collector & Historian

Balch was initially very accommodating in his dealings with the Colt Company. For example, he removed one of his inspectors from the company when Sam Colt objected to his presence, even though Thornton had refused to do so when Colt had requested the man’s removal earlier.24 As the following series of letters will show, Balch was more lenient with Colt than he should have been. On 4 December 1861, Balch telegraphed Ripley, “Please stop payment immediately on last certificate presented by Col. Colt for one thousand pistols. The receipt from Major Whiteley was obtained by false representations. The certificates were not approved by me. More by mail.” A scathing letter about Colt followed. Balch had gone to Troy, New York, and claimed to have been in communication with Colt about signing papers regarding deliveries before leaving. Only his side of the issue is documented and it is impossible to say for certain what the true story was but his letter of the fourth was regarding papers finalizing the delivery of one thousand Colt army pistols. These revolvers had been delivered to Whiteley at the New York Arsenal and Colt claimed the paper work had been sent to Springfield by messenger, believing Balch would be there to sign them. When he was not they attempted to get Whiteley to sign them, stating Balch could not be found. But Whiteley would only, as was proper, sign a receipt for the pistols received, not the inspection certificate that was also needed to submit the bill. Whiteley sent the papers to the Ordnance Office and so advised Balch. Balch angrily stated Colt knew where he was and when he would return but choose not to wait, adding: The company have displayed much greater zeal in obtaining the necessary signatures to their certificates, desiring as they repeatedly do the sub-inspector’s certificates, before the pistols are even boxed, than they do in keeping the promises made in Sept. last in regard to an increased product, and giving the Ord. Dept. the whole of it and to say the least, such precipitate and fraudulent means to obtain their pay comes with very ill grace from them. When I was directed by you to take charge of this inspection, with a view of accommodating the company, and to enable it the sooner to obtain pay for the pistols we received, I receipted on my own certificate of inspection instead of leaving the company to wait one, two and perhaps three weeks for the receipt of the officer to whom they were ultimately sent. If the company have (sic) been obliged to wait on one or two occasions because I was absent, they have been more than compensated for the delay by the time I have repeatedly saved them awaiting the receipts of the officer to whom they were consigned. As long as I am the Inspector at this establishment it is of the first importance that the business of the inspection should be done as I direct, and that my authority should be obeyed and respected ... .25

This letter is in the Chief of Ordnance files and is on page 106 in the letter book. Regarding its contents, it should be noted while Balch was responsible for inspection of other ordnance stores beside Colt revolvers and may well have had official business in Troy, the Ordnance Department files contain no official orders for the travel and Troy happened to be where his wife was living. More importantly, Balch had been negligent in this matter. He also later admitted he had, in fact, told Colt to send the certificate to Springfield for his signature.26 He closed this letter with, “If I have neglected my duty it is a matter to which I am alone answerable to the Dept. and to its decision I am always ready cheerfully to submit.” Given he was a great favorite of Ripley’s, he probably was not worried. However, General Ripley would come to regret the trust he had placed in the captain. Likewise, if Whiteley had previously had a good relationship with Balch, this incident may have ended it. On 4 December, Balch wrote Whiteley: The pistols were issued to you by me and I must hold you accountable for them. I greatly regret that you should have lent an ear to any representations made by Col. Colt’s agent as in stating to you that I could not be found. He stated a deliberate untruth. I was in Troy on duty, where I could have been easily reached and Col. Colt’s agent knew it, as the messenger dispatched by Col. Colt was so informed by my clerk, Mr. Chapin. … I beg that in future you will pay no heed whatever to solicitations such as these, at least so long as I am the party to be aggrieved.27

The following day Balch wrote Hugh Harbison, Colt treasurer, telling him to immediately return by express the eighteen blank inspection certificates sent to him some time since. This is another accommodation to Colt that Balch had made, one neither of his predecessors would have done. In all other cases the author has seen in Ordnance Department records, only the inspecting officer or his principal sub-inspector held these certificates and they were signed and given to the contractor only after a delivery was ready. On the same day Balch wrote his principal sub-inspector at Colt, John Taylor, as follows: The last certificates signed by you were sent here by special messenger by Col. Colt last week. Not finding me here Col. Colt took the liberty of presenting the certificates to Major Whiteley for his approval and he very properly refused to sign them. In consequence to this disregard of my authority … I have directed Mr. Harbison to return to me immediately all the blank certificates of mine now in his possession and you will in future be governed strictly by the following directions in signing certificates. You will sign no certificate whatsoever unless they are sent you by myself. When 1000 pistols are ready for shipping, you will give Mr. Harbison three blanks to fill up. If correct you will then sign as “principal sub-inspector” and transmit the papers to me by mail directly, in no case permitting them to pass through Col. Colt’s office or through the hands of any of his agents. I will forward them to the Company’s Secretary myself. I enclose three blank certificates for the next 1000, 500 of which have already been forwarded to Col. Ramsay.28

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

FIGs 4 & 5. Colt Model 1860 number 87477 was delivered to the New York Arsenal on 6 January 1863 but is representative of those delivered during Captain Balch’s service as inspecting officer. John Taylor’s cartouche on the grip. Photos courtesy of Paul Davies.

Regarding the shipment in question and its related paperwork, Captain Balch wrote Harbison on 9 December regarding an inquiry from the Colt Company, … of the 5th making inquiry as to the disposition made of the certificates for 1000 pistols brought here by your agent on the 27th ultimo. The letter is not satisfactory as I do not see what authority Major Whiteley has to sign certificates for me so long as I am inspector at your works. I have therefore requested General Ripley to stop payment on the certificates until they may have been approved by me as prescribed by my instructions. In order to prevent in future any such disrespect of my authority while connected with your company, I have directed my principal sub-inspector upon signing the duplicate certificates to transmit them directly to me by mail, in no case permitting them to pass through the hands of agents of the company, and in view of the manner in which both my authority and my confidence have been abused, I intend to see that the instructions are strictly obeyed.29

Balch had been doing the company a favor in the procedures he was using and they appear to have been overly aggressive in attempting to get their payment as soon as possible. In the process of doing so they attempted to go around him as the inspecting officer and made an enemy of a man who had far more influence than most Army captains. In November 1863, nearly a year and a half before the end of the war, Balch would be instrumental in the Army’s decision to stop contracting with Colt for revolvers.30 Balch does not appear to have attended any of the final inspections for Colts delivered while he was inspecting officer. If he did, no records reflect that fact. While he did inspect Ames cannon in person and was described by James Ames as being too exacting, no small arms are known bearing his initials.31 Certainly, he was less involved than any of the other officers who served as inspector officer for Civil War or pre-war Colt pistols. As an example, there was considerable confusion regarding his records of deliveries compared to those of the factory. On one occasion he had to go to Hartford to meet with Harbison to resolve differences in their respective records.32 In his

FIGs 6, 7, 7a – This 1861-dated Ames 12-pounder mountain howitzer has Balch’s initials “G.T.B.” on the muzzle. Photos courtesy of James D. Julia Auctioneers, Fairfield, ME.

defense it should be stated he was a very busy man at a very chaotic period during the war and, unlike Whiteley and Thornton, he did not have extensive experience as an inspecting officer. The inspection of Sharps arms provided another situation that lead to conflict between Balch and Whiteley, which was precipitated by an order from the War Department. On 23 October 1861, the War Department directed Ripley to send one thousand breech-loading carbines (Burnside or Sharps) and sabers to Col. T. L. Dickey, Springfield, Illinois. The letter indicated the regiment was “now ready” and an order for immediate delivery was to be sent to Hagner. Ripley immediately sent a copy of the War Department order to Hagner and ordered him to comply. Perhaps recognizing that Hagner had no role in inspection and receipt of carbines, on the twenty-fifth, Ripley then ordered Balch to send the first one thousand Sharps carbines he could get delivered to Dickey. Hagner was advised of this and told to send the sabers, which he could obtain in New York City.33 This was in spite of the fact Whiteley was the inspecting officer in charge of the Sharps contract and normally received such orders. On 30 October, Balch first wrote Palmer at Sharps saying to forward the first one thousand carbines he had completed after the receipt of this order to Colonel Dickey in Springfield, Illinois, and to report to Balch when the order was filled. It was to supersede all other orders he had. It should be noted here the Army policy at the time, and for most of the war, was to issue a cavalryman only one firearm, either a pistol or a carbine, and a saber. In

unlikely the rifles were blued or made easy on the trigger for him and it is also unlikely any were ever even issued to him. But the order reflects Berdan’s influence since at this point in the war most volunteer regiments were lucky to get enough rifles to arm their flank companies and had to take smooth bore muskets for the others. Regardless, the Springfield rifle was not good enough for him and in November McClellan’s ordnance officer requested one thousand Colt revolving rifles be bought for Berdan.36 These Colts were shipped in late December and issued shortly thereafter but ultimately proved to be unpopular with the Sharpshooters. In January 1862, the Ordnance Department was directed to order one thousand Sharps rifles for Berdan, who had complained his regiment was unarmed. Ripley replied to the secretary of war on 27 January, stating he had procured the Colt rifles as directed and also, regarding the regiment being “without arms,” he quoted the letter from Berdan dated 19 July in which the colonel asked for 750 Springfield rifles saying he preferred them to all others. The Springfield rifles were accordingly sent to the Washington Arsenal for the regiment and there were also Harpers Ferry rifles with sword bayonets the colonel could have had if he had requisitioned them but he would not take them. The Ordnance Department ordered the Sharps rifles as directed but noted the order might impact delivery of Sharps carbines, which it did.37 Further, the department was soon directed to order an additional one thousand Sharps rifles for Berdan’s second regiment. Unfortunately, Sharps could not deliver the FIG 8. Balch Letter Book, page 9. The Balch letter book contains rifles as early as initially promised, which caused the 317 pages with some letters that can be found nowhere else, exchange of numerous telegrams and letters regarding such as this direction to the Sharps Rifle Company. Max Guenthert their delivery. Finally, on 4 March, Palmer at Sharps collection; photo courtesy of Paul Davies. optimistically reported the first one thousand rifles would all cases where the author has seen this policy violated it be ready by the twentieth and the rest by 10 April, adding was with officers having great political influence, which “interfered as little as possible with delivery of carbines … was the case with Dickey. Balch did as directed and in this .” In a letter on the tenth, he stated Berdan had no cause case he then coordinated his action with Whiteley the next to complain because the delay in delivery had been due to day.34 Unfortunately such coordination did not occur in his insistence on having the sights and bayonets changed the next instance, which was again a matter of political and double set triggers added.38 influence, the Sharps rifles for the Berdan Sharpshooters. Ripley’s reliance on Balch soon made the situation The Berdan Sharpshooter arms’ story is lengthy and worse, for in spite of the fact Whiteley was responsible convoluted, but the bottom line is, thanks to Major General for the carbine contract and already had inspectors at McClellan and Secretary of War Stanton, Colonel Berdan the company, he assigned Balch to the inspection of the could (and did) get whatever arms he wanted. He first asked Berdan rifles. He further compounded his error by making for 750 Springfield rifled muskets in July and was told they his direction ambiguous. His 13 March telegraphic order could be issued to him in Washington when the regiment read, “Inspect and send on all the Sharps rifles ready on arrived there. After getting this answer he then asked for Saturday.”39 them to be “bronzed and made easier on the trigger.”35 It is On 14 March, Balch wrote Ripley saying he had gone 68

Military Collector & Historian

FIG 9. This Sharps rifle with double set triggers, number 56753, is in serial number range of rifles documented to the Berdan Sharpshooters. Photo courtesy Rock Island Auction Company, Rock Island, IL.

to Sharps to inspect and ship the rifles but none had been ready. Palmer told him he would have five hundred ready in ten days but Balch doubted he would make that schedule. Balch said if Berdan had not insisted on double triggers and a hair lock the whole two thousand would have been in service by this date.40 Due to the wording of Ripley’s telegram, Balch believed his responsibility in the matter was finished and he did nothing further until Ripley telegraphed him again on 5 April to ship the first one thousand rifles directly to Fort Monroe for the 1st Regiment, Berdan’s Sharpshooters.41 Balch’s surviving letter book ends with an entry dated 10 March 1862, but fortunately his response to Ripley is in the Chief of Ordnance files. In his letter dated 7 April, Balch said he had immediately telegraphed Sharps asking the status of the arms and had gotten a reply on the sixth stating all the accouterments and ammunition had gone forward and one hundred rifles would be ready on the seventh and 60 to 75 per day would be afterwards. He said the only orders he had gotten regarding these arms before this was Ripley’s telegram of 13 March directing him to inspect and send forward all that the company had ready and he had reported they had nothing ready to inspect. He added: No further instructions having been received by me on the subject, in view of the fact that Major Whiteley had control of the inspection at Sharps works, I did not feel authorized to take any further steps in the matter. On the receipt of your telegram of the 5th instant however, it evidently being your intention that I should take up and forward these arms, I immediately (on the 6th) gave explicit verbal instructions to one of the most energetic and competent inspector I have to proceed to inspect and forward the arms with utmost dispatch. A copy of my instructions to him is enclosed. As Major Whiteley has but two sub-inspectors at Sharps to examine the same number of arms for which I find four imperatively necessary, I did not feel authorized to call on his men, and have therefore temporarily assigned enough of my men there, to take up two hundred arms per day if offered, and the Dept. may therefore rest assured that this lot of arms will go forward just as rapidly as the manufacturers turn them out.42

In his instructions to Principal Sub-inspector John Taylor, Balch said to take all the men he needed from their inspection duties at Colt and, in order to further expedite the inspection, to examine strictly only the most important parts of the rifles. Taylor appears to have taken three inspectors from Colt. Due to the fact that most arms contracts were at this time being held in abeyance while the Holt-Owen Commission examined all outstanding contracts for arms, this does not appear to have adversely affected Colt, but it did have a negative impact on Sharps.43 On 9 April Palmer wrote Ripley: Mr. Hartwell and Mr. Chapman, Sub Inspectors stationed with us by Major Whiteley last fall, have first proved near 2000 rifle barrels for the Berdan Sharp Shooters, and inspected several hundred finished barrels, receivers, stocks,

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

bands, locks, screws and other parts, and some 150 to 200 of the rifles are assembled ready to snap off and be sent forward. I yesterday received instructions from Capt. Balch, Ord. Corps, as follows. “I do not feel authorized to call on Capt. Whiteley’s inspectors to examine these arms in view of all the other work they have to do. I have directed Mr. John Taylor to take charge of the inspection of these rifles and have given him ample assistants to inspect if necessary two hundred arms per day. You will please give him all necessary facilities to push forward the inspection with utmost dispatch, but no arms are to go forward until passed by him. As soon as one hundred arms are inspected they will be forwarded to the following address—Lt. J. G. Baylor, Fort Monroe Arsenal, for First Regiment Berdan’s Sharp Shooters, care of Col. D. D. Tompkins, Asst. Q.M. General, New York. And as fast as 100 are inspected they will be shipped to this address until 1000 have been sent. The remainder will be kept until you receive further instructions from me.” Mr. Taylor has entered upon his duties with three assistants this morning. It is not possible for us to turn out more than 65 to 75 rifles per day and very little can be done on carbines until the rifles are turned in. Hartwell & Chapman, by hard work day and night and sometimes on Sunday, have kept the work up on carbines so that we have made near 2000 a month for the last 4 or 5 months or about 80 per day. To forward the arms with the greatest dispatch we want all of the bench room we can have, and two sets of Sub Inspectors crowd upon us very much and the state of feeling exists between them is anything but agreeable. If, however, in your opinion the public interests will be promoted by keeping the two sets here we shall cheerfully conform to your wishes and do the best we can to get off the arms.44

Ripley’s only reply to Palmer was to say Balch’s actions were approved and Palmer was to “afford his inspections [sic] all necessary facilities for a rapid completion of this work.”45 Whiteley had forwarded a letter from Palmer to Ripley that probably said the same as his letter to Ripley above, but we don’t know what Whiteley said in his endorsement. However, Whiteley’s response to this situation is given in two letters in his letter book. On 10 April, he reassigned William Chapman to Chicopee to assist John Hannis inspecting swords and sabers at Ames, telling him he would return Chapman to Sharps when Sharps resumed carbine work in full. He then informed Hartwell of Chapman’s reassignment and told him to remain at Sharps and inspect as many carbines as the company could furnish. He added, “Give Capt. Balch’s assistants all the information in reference to the work as far as you progressed but do not touch it again. You will not obey any orders from Capt. Balch, if he gives you any you will refer him to me. I wish 500 carbines as soon as possible and as many as the company can make immediately after.”46 In spite of all the special tasking Ripley gave Balch, as

Military Collector & Historian

FIG 10. The cartouches on Berdan configuration Sharps rifle number 54733, are those of Allen W. Mather, Edward Flather, and Thomas W. Russell. Mather’s service is not documented in the few surviving inspection records for the Berdan rifle period but his cartouche is found on some Smith carbines from the 1862–1863 period. Flather’s early service is not documented either, although his cartouche is found on some Colt revolvers delivered in June-August 1862. But on 7 April 1862 Capt. Dyer at Springfield Armory ordered Russell, the most senior of the three men, to report to Balch for inspection duty (RG156, E1351, Springfield Armory letters sent). Photo courtesy Rock Island Auction Company, www.rockislandauction.com.

FIG 11. James W. Ripley, Chief of Ordnance, 1861–1863. Courtesy of the National Archives , Washington, DC.

noted above, the general was anxious for him to return to Washington. As early as 23 November 1861, he told Balch he wanted the captain to turn over his business to another officer “who will probably relieve you in a short time” and Balch would then be ordered to duty at the Ordnance Office. That was not to be and instead, later on this same day, Ripley authorized Whiteley to call on Balch for inspection assistance since the major had so much to do at the New York Arsenal.47 Ripley next wrote Balch, on 25 March 1862, stating he was to close his present business as soon as practicable and report to the Ordnance Office for duty.48 This was after placing Balch in charge of inspecting the Berdan rifles on 13 March, and at the time of his letter none of the rifles had been delivered. Balch replied saying he was hiring a fourth clerk to expedite preparation of his paperwork.49 Again, on 7 April, Ripley telegraphed Balch Lt. Col. William Maynadier, Ripley’s principal assistant, was too ill to work and Balch should report to Washington for duty immediately. He sent another telegram on the tenth asking if Balch had received the earlier one. The captain finally showed up at the Ordnance Office on 12 April, but by the twenty-fourth he was back in Springfield working on the Sharps rifle inspection and two days later he was told to take charge of the inspection of ten thousand sabers made by D. J. Millard, Clayville, New York.50 However, Ripley was in the process of setting up an office of “Inspector of Contract Arms and Accouterments,” to which duty he assigned Thornton on 23 May 1862. Except for the completion of the Savage revolver contract, the

last delivery of which was on 10 June, on 3 June, Balch was ordered to turn over his inspector duties to Thornton along with all books and papers related to his inspection assignments.51 His last remaining task was given on 11 June, when he was ordered to return to Springfield and to close out his duties there, turn over public property to the military store keeper, and his remaining books and papers to Capt. Alexander Dyer. He was then to return to the Ordnance Office for duty. Obviously, Balch’s letter book was government property and presumably it would have been turned over to Thornton. How it got into private hands is unknown. In addition, given the book ended on 13 March 1862 and Balch’s duties did not end until months later, there probably was another letter book that followed this one. The Whiteley-Thornton inspection letter book remained in the records of the New York Arsenal to this day, probably placed there by Maj. Julian McAllister in 1867. George Balch is often described as the “de facto Chief of Ordnance” for the period September 1863 to September 1864, the period when George D. Ramsay held the chief’s position. He is even included in the Ordnance Corps Hall of Fame with the rationale being based on his service during the above period. That service has gotten the most attention from historians, while Balch had also served as an assistant to General Ripley from June 1862 to Ripley’s retirement in September 1863. Some have said Ripley’s retirement was forced upon him due to his “refusal to utilize and promote newly developed weapons.” That is at least in part true. But, for the most part, in the author’s opinion, Ripley was not wrong in what he did. However, in doing what he thought was right he made enemies of many influential men. Other factors were at play in his removal as well. As indicated in the above material, Ripley does not appear to have used his personnel most effectively, which probably contributed to the dissatisfaction felt by both his

superiors as well as some subordinates, chief among them being Captain Balch. But it appears there was much more to the story. The author has been researching Ordnance Department records for forty years and still has not had an opportunity to review many thousands of documents. But he happened upon an obscure entry titled, “Miscellaneous Correspondence, 1833–1912,” which contained an extraordinary package of documents related to this subject. To the author’s knowledge, these documents are published here for the first time. This small package contains a hand written copy of a letter dated 31 August 1864 from General Ripley to Captain Balch and a printed document consisting of an undated introduction and a letter from Ripley to Balch dated 19 September 1864. All of the material was found in an Ordnance Department envelope that bore General Dyer’s name and the words “Ripley–Balch Papers” written on it. The 31 August 1864 letter reads as follows: I have understood within a few days that during my connection with the Ordnance Office, even as far back as 1862, you were using your efforts through official and political services to affect my removal from the position of Chief of Ordnance. Considering our official relations at that time and the personal intimacy then subsisting between ourselves and families, I am reluctant to believe you capable of pursuing a course so entirely inconsistent with those relations. It is nevertheless due to you that I should inform you of what I have understood, and thus offer you the opportunity of removing the unfavorable impression which the information I have received is so calculated to provide. Your early reply will oblige.

The printed and undated introductory page reads: Rumors, apparently well founded, having reached me, that Capt. Balch, with other well-known conspirators, had been secretly plotting to accomplish my removal from my position as Chief of Ordnance, (even as far back as August, 1862,) I addressed him a civil note, informing him of the nature of the reports alluded to, and inquiring whether I had been correctly informed, thus affording him an opportunity for explanation, if he had any to offer. To this simple note of inquiry, I received a studied and most insulting reply of four closely written pages, and under these circumstances the following rejoinder was written.

The printed Ripley letter to Balch, dated Hartford, 19 September 1864 reads: Your letter of the 3rd instant is received and read. Although you begin by a profession of candor in a simple reply to a plain question, your long and labored letter shows evident duplicity, sought to be hidden by you under the ostensible garb of duty. But your heartless impudence cannot cover up or conceal from any honest mind your total want of candid frankness in answering a plain question, or hide your disgrace and dishonor in what you have impudently avowed, only because you dared not deny it from fear of the proof at hand. From this plain insight into your character, furnished by yourself and from other indisputable evidence in my possession, I cannot but reach the conviction that the

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

“complaints and charges” in regard to my official conduct, to which you refer, as well as to the assaults on my personal integrity, which you take credit for defending, have been originated and spread by yourself, whether from malicious heartlessness of from self-interest, or whatever motive, your own consciousness can alone tell. So much in regard to the general character and purport of your letter. As respects its particulars, they, like all other mean subterfuges, may be readily exposed. Your audacious assertion that at my earnest request, you called on Senators Fessenden, Grimes and Pomeroy, for the purpose of placing my “services and merits” before them in such a light as would induce them to vote for my confirmation, is the coolest piece of impudence ever uttered, even by you, and on my responsibility I pronounce it an unmitigated and malicious falsehood. My nomination, with hundreds of others, was for a long time before the Senate unacted upon, but I never asked any Senator for his vote, though I did request several, as opportunity offered, to endeavor to have my nomination called up and acted upon at as early a day as possible, and it is quite probable that I may have asked outside friends to use their efforts to the same end. To this extent I may also have requested, among others, your co-operation, but that I should have solicited Captain Geo. T. Balch to place my “services and merits” in a favorable light before the three Senators you name, one of whom I have known intimately more years than you have numbered since your birth, is too preposterous for belief. It is, indeed, a monstrous lie. From the time I took charge of the Ordnance Office till the day I left it, Colonel Maynadier occupied the same room and a desk beside me, and was cognizant of almost every business matter that occurred during that time. I can confidently appeal to him to prove the falsity of your general charge of my “official rudeness.” I must admit that, on one occasion, Major Benton witnessed a scene in the office that might be considered somewhat rude on my part, when I ordered an infamous fellow, who dared to offer to “make it for my interest” to give him a contract, out of my office, and threatened to kick him out if he did not go immediately. Were you ever tried in any such way, and did your sense of wounded honor induce you to spurn the base proposition as well as the fellow? Did you feel insulted and express your indignation in unmistaken terms, or did you pocket the affront? I have heard of such instances of official courtesy and honesty on your part, intimated, and without being able to find a warrant for denying their truth. I could not, therefore, defend your personal integrity, as there were no grounds on which to base such defense; but on the contrary there has recently come into my possession evidence confirmatory of that style of courtesy in your official transactions. You further state that as you gradually obtained a clearer insight into the duties and responsibilities of the Bureau, and became familiar with the manner in which I administered its affairs, you discovered many evil practices and wrong doings. Even you will not deny that Col. Maynadier and Maj. Benton, who were more intimately acquainted with my official acts, are observant men, possessing fair ability, at least equal to your own, and if, as you asserted, the Department was “daily losing

Military Collector & Historian FIGs 12, 13. George Balch had some influential friends who came close to getting him promoted to the Chief of Ordnance position. Perhaps they presented him with this pistol, a Colt Model 1849 Pocket model, serial number 185912, with an inscription that appears to read: “Presented to Capt. George T. Balch, USA, by his friends in New York, 1862.” Photos courtesy of Paul Davies.

position, reputation, everything, neglecting our duty, and making enemies,” how shall these gentlemen stand excused for not sounding the alarm, and making an effort to arrest the impending destruction of our Corps? Have they less interest in protecting its honor, interests, and usefulness than yourself? They are not only able, but honorable men, who would scorn to seek a private benefit at the expense of one jot or tittle of their conscientious sense of uprightness. But you are incapable of appreciating the motives which govern the actions of such men, and are driven to assign false reasons to hide your baseness and treachery. The real motives for the dishonorable course you have pursued must be sought for, and will be found, elsewhere than in my “mal-administration” of the Department, or your high sense of “duty,” of which you prate so glibly. They may find in your correspondence with one of your fellow-conspirators, “My dear General.” Did you ever indulge in aspirations for the succession in case the conspiracy to affect my removal should succeed? If not, will you with your usual candor and frankness, interpret the following passages contained in some of the letters to “My dear General,” in your own handwriting and bearing your own signature? “I have fully made up my mind that I can fill the position you spoke of, as I believe, with credit to the Department, and acquit myself of the trust in a manner which will not disappoint the confidence which you and other friends repose in me.” “I feel that if anything is done by my friends in the matter, it should be done now, and I am going to ask you to take up the matter, and after obtaining all the influence you can bring to bear, push the business.” “I shall be able, before the end of the year, to give the most detailed and extended statement, readily, on any matter connected with the Bureau.” But I will not multiply these damning proofs of your unparalleled perfidy. They will suffice perhaps, to convince you that I am acquainted with your dishonorable and dishonest practices for more than two years past. If not, there are more of the same kind, which in due time shall be brought to light, and will make known to the world your true character, as plainly as if the brand of Cain were seared on your forehead. They will show you that the way of the transgressor is hard, and that the vilest reptile that crawls the earth, however serpentine his course, leaves a track behind, by which he may be followed, and if need be, his head may be bruised under our heel. You speak generally of favoritism on

my part. Can you specify a single authenticated instance of such favoritism during the whole period of my service in the Ordnance Office? If you can you are bound, and I challenge you to do it. If not, you stand forth a convicted liar. But not only in this have you lied. Your statement in your letter to me, that you did not at any time during my term of office, that you are aware of, use any efforts whatever, through political channels, to affect my removal, is proved to be a lie by your own letters, addressed to Charles T. James,52 of Rhode Island, in your own handwriting and over your own sign manual. These letters prove that you did use such efforts during my term of office, privately, surreptitiously, and deliberately; and without the possibility of your not being aware of it. You speak of the reputation of the Ordnance Bureau for fair dealing being in question. It was never to my knowledge or belief, since I took charge of the Bureau, called in question till in an evil day you were introduced into it, and have since had too much to do with the conduct of its affairs. Recently throughout the army, complaints and curses loud and deep, are heaped upon it, or rather upon your head; for it is well understood with whom originate the many vexatious and petty annoyances to which officers of all grades have been subjected, to say nothing of the curt and uncivil letters addressed to them. You speak of your “official” connection with the War Department. You never had any such connection with it while serving under my command. You were simply on duty in the office of the Chief of Ordnance, as one of his assistants, and while serving in that capacity, you basely and falsely conspired against him, and perfidiously betrayed the confidence, both personal and official, which was necessarily reposed in you, from the position you occupied. The annals of the Army may be searched in vain, I am happy to say, for as flagitious an instance of moral and professional turpitude. As regards the instance you adduce of assaults on my private character, viz.: the connection of Mr. Knapp with my purchase of a house in Washington, it has too little ground, in fact, on which to base a plausible scandal. I have ample proof in my possession of the character of that transaction (and it may also be found on application to Riggs & Co., Bankers, Washington, with whom the purchase money was deposited by me months before the deed of the property was delivered,) throughout, and on which I am entirely willing to base the defense of my personal reputation, if it should be called in question by anyone whose character and previous

conduct do not render him unworthy of belief. I have already expressed my conviction that the slander originated from the same source that concocted the conspiracy against my official reputation, and I must adhere to that conviction notwithstanding your assertion that when you have heard my reputation for “integrity” “frequently assailed” you have “invariably defended me.” If so, it must have been from some motive of self-interest, and I think I duly appreciate the obligation. But when you add “my testimony on this point has, I have reason to believe, counteracted the effect of accusations, which, if true, would ruin your personal reputation,” my mortification is extreme. I cannot think that I have fallen so low as to have ever done an act, which should subject me to the deep humiliation of having my “integrity” defended by you, and I must beg, as the only favor you can do me, that you will, hereafter, entirely refrain from any further efforts in my defense. (signed) Jas. W. Ripley53

Alexander B. Dyer was appointed Chief of Ordnance on 13 September 1864 and this package of documents was probably given to Dyer sometime after 19 September 1864. Gen. George D. Ramsay had been placed on the retirement list but Balch also had already been reassigned by then, so these documents probably played no role in Balch’s removal from the Ordnance Office. Ramsay’s forced retirement and Balch’s reassignment instead appear to have been the result of several incidents that showed a near total collapse in the working relationship between the two men. But this relationship was doomed from the start. When the decision was made to force General Ripley to retire, Secretary Stanton had favored promotion of Balch to the position of Chief of Ordnance. President Lincoln, however, favored Colonel Ramsay, commander of the Washington Arsenal and a friend of the President’s. Reportedly President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton compromised by giving the title to Ramsay and naming Balch as his “Principal Assistant,” but with everyone (except the unfortunate Ramsay) having the understanding that Balch was to run the Ordnance Department. Lt. Col. Maynadier, Ripley’s principal assistant of long standing, was reassigned outside the Ordnance Office, which caused Ramsay to rely almost exclusively upon Balch. This must have been very disappointing to Balch and it is not clear why he agreed to the arrangement, but he did.54 Not FIG 14. George D. Ramsay, Chief of Ordnance, 1863–1864. Courtesy of the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlisle, PA.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

surprisingly, due to the arrangement and Balch’s own nature, problems soon arose and on 10 February 1864 Balch asked to be reassigned to other duties. The following is his letter to General Ramsay: I have the honor to request that I may be relieved from duty as Principal Military Assistant in this office by some officer who can perform the duties of the position more acceptably than myself, and that on being so relieved I may be assigned to some other station. My reasons for taking this step are as follows: So long as I hold my present position as your confidential assistant, it is only proper that I should be consulted on all matters which relate directly to the great interest or duties of the Ordnance Department. Recently events which have transpired [unreadable] about me, among which may be noticed the reference to my juniors in rank and experience of important questions hitherto peculiarly within my province and hitherto solely referred to me, are too significant to be misunderstood. It is evident that official confidence in me, so necessary to ensure harmonious action between us, no longer exists; and hence it is a duty I owe to you as well as myself that by voluntarily requesting to be relieved by another officer, I leave you free to take that course, which you deem the most conducive to the public interest. In our conversation this morning you were pleased to state several of the objections, which you and a number of the senior officers of the Department made to my course of action, since I had held my present position; some of these, such as a misuse of your name and authority; oppressing the officers of the Department with unnecessary labor; unnecessarily complicating the system of doing business in this office; pressing upon your notice vast schemes for enlarging and improving the principal arsenals with plans for an armory and foundries, too comprehensive to be considered when the wants of the Army were so pressing and demanded all of your attention; communicating with the War Department proper, without informing you of what transpired at such interviews; and lastly, an undignified, curt, and harsh style of correspondence by letter and telegraph. All these are charges of such a nature that even if not true, the mere fact that my course may seem to have warranted their being made is reason sufficient for my being relieved. For while I can conscientiously say I have done nothing since we have been associated which was not prompted by the purest of motives, with only what I considered to be the best interests of the Department and the service in view. I can readily understand how my instructions may have given offence and my motives been misunderstood by those who knew nothing of the circumstances, or who did not see the events and obligations of the Department from the same standpoint as myself. My views of the duties which devolve upon this office and upon me in my present position are of that character, though to continue to discharge them conscientiously would I am convinced only bring us continually in conflict.

Military Collector & Historian

This I most sincerely desire to avoid and hence I consider it my duty to prefer this request to be relieved and resign my position in favor of some other officer of the Corps whose method of transacting the business of the office, whose style of correspondence and whose view of the responsibilities of his position will be found more congenial with your own.55

Two points should be noted in Balch’s letter. First, Colonel Ramsay, not knowing he was expected to be only a figurehead, had consulted other officers on matters that Balch felt should have gone through him, the “real” Chief of Ordnance. Second, Balch was sending other Ordnance Department officers letters, under Ramsay’s signature, which were quite negative, curt, and offensive. Not knowing his own true status, Ramsay forwarded Balch’s letter on 11 February and recommended his reassignment: When I took charge of the Ordnance Bureau in Sept. last, Capt. Balch was assigned as my principal assistant; and from his having previously served under my command where relations of the greatest kindness and the most friendly intimacy and confidence had existed between us, that assignment was not unacceptable to me. This relation, as well as the necessity of my relying on his knowledge of previous transactions of the Bureau, led me to consult with and confide in him almost exclusively until I could have time to learn and understand the various and multitudinous duties of the Department, and this, in the midst of pressing current duties allowing but little time for investigation. This confidence, Capt. Balch’s previous long experience in the Bureau, led me to adopt and to sanction by my official signature, much correspondence and many orders and instructions, and thus to assume a responsibility which with less assured confidence and with more time to have considered and scrutinized, I would and have done. My attention has been called unofficially to the effects of this course by some of the most trustworthy and experienced officers of the Dept. who have complained of a style and manner of correspondence seeming to reflect on their professional ability by a system of instructions in minute details, unnecessary for officers of so long and varied experience, and offensive to their self-respect. Circumstances rendered it necessary for me to mention this matter to Capt. Balch as our relations were not as cordial as heretofore; and I did so, openly and cordially, and stating that I had no other desire than that the affairs of the office should be carried on frankly and harmoniously. Hence comes the action which has been taken in the matter, as shown in his letter herewith submitted on the main subject of which I have respectfully to remark that while fully acknowledging his talents, industry and attention to his duties I can best believe that his mode of doing business is calculated to disturb the harmony and good will which should [exist] between the Department and its officers. I therefore recommend the acceptance of the resignation he now offers of his position in this Bureau and his assignment to another of equal honor and dignity.56

It was probably at this point General Ramsay had come to understand his true position. According to one source, Secretary Stanton gave him one week to “make

up with Balch or be relieved from command.” Stanton also discussed the matter with Balch and on 13 February, Ramsay reported to Secretary Stanton, “It gives me pleasure to inform you that mutual friendly relations have been restored between Capt. Balch and myself, and I can but hope and believe that by cordial cooperation the affairs of the Ordnance Department will be conducted to your entire satisfaction and to the best interests of the service.”57 This cordial cooperation did not last long. According to one historian, by August, Ramsay was being “bombarded” with searching inquiries about various topics, “all implying negligence on Ramsay’s part, all signed by Stanton and all in Balch’s handwriting.” On 9 August 1864, Balch once more submitted his request for reassignment, this time directly to Secretary Stanton and not through Gen. Ramsay: On the 15th Sept. 1863 in obedience to your order I was assigned to duty as Principal Military Assistant to General Geo. D. Ramsay, who was on that day appointed Chief of Ordnance. Two days before at an interview with the Hon. [Assistant Secretary] P. H. Watson he intimated that in the new arrangement of the Ordnance Office the War Department would expect me to be responsible for the efficient conduct of its business and looked to me to infuse into its acts new life and vigor. These remarks served to quicken my determination to give my best energies to the work before me, but I did not fail to perceive the difficult position in which this confidence of the War Department placed me as regarded my conduct towards the head of the Bureau. I undertook the task assigned me, however, hoping that by the exercise of patience and discretion and reliance on the personal friendship which for ten years had existed between General Ramsay and myself, to be able to preserve our pleasant personal relations and at the same time carry out the wishes of the Dept. as indicated by the Assistant Secretary of War. Although I have strenuously endeavored for eleven months to conscientiously discharge the duties assigned me, without wounding General Ramsay’s pride or encroaching on his prerogatives, however successful I may have been in discharging my duty I have failed in avoiding the two last evils and it is plainly evident today, not only that my presence is personally distasteful to General Ramsay, but that that official confidence in me so necessary to ensure harmonious action is entirely wanting. General Ramsay’s views of the duties and obligations of the Ordnance Department and his habits of thought and action are so essentially at variance with my own that I feel to be any longer associated with him under the present circumstances will only bring us in continued conflict. This I most sincerely desire to avoid and hence as to you I owe the position I hold, I have felt it but proper that to you I should explain the present situation of this affair. Without attempting to enter into the merits or demerits of the differences which have led to the present rupture I feel that it is better for the interests of the Bureau and the Ordnance Department that I should leave the Ordnance Office. I have the honor therefore respectfully to request that I may be relieved from my present position as Principal Military

Assistant to the Chief of Ordnance and assigned to some other duty where I can be of equal service to the Department during the continuance of the war.58

The “present rupture” was a very significant one and was one the new Assistant Secretary of War, Charles Dana, would not tolerate. On 30 July 1864, Dana had asked the Ordnance Department for information on its plans for improving the manufacturing capacities of its arsenals “upon which [an] appropriation of $2,000,000 was predicate,” and which had been granted by Congress at its last session: You will state upon what specific data the plans are based, the nature of the data, and how they have been obtained, and the general principles which have governed the Bureau in assigning under these plans to each arsenal its appropriate work. You will also state what progress has been made in the detailed plans and estimates for the necessary shops, laboratories and storehouses, and what means have been [unreadable] to secure to the government for its use in these shops and laboratories, the benefit of the valuable experience in manufacturing material of war, gained during the past three years. You will further report at what arsenals improvements under these plans are now in progress, when they may be expected to be completed, and also when all the improvements contemplated will be so far completed as to make this appropriation available for, and contribute to, meeting the immediate military wants of the country.59

This was not an unreasonable request, as anyone who has worked in agency budgeting in the federal government knows, for the request should have been based on detailed plans and operational data. On 2 August, Ramsay referred the request to Balch saying “as this branch of the Ordnance Bureau has been more particularly under your charge, [you will] cause to be prepared and submitted to me the necessary information to enable me promptly to comply with the Secretary’s order.”60 Balch’s answer on the fifth was far from satisfactory. Ramsay responded to Dana on 8 August. In a long letter that probably was painful to write, Ramsay said he had reviewed the records of his predecessor and there had been no such plans made “circumstances have rendered it inexpedient, if not impracticable, to continue the custom formerly in vogue of requiring plans and estimates of proposed [word not readable] at each post, to be furnished by the commanding officer in time to embody them, if approved, in the general estimate submitted annually to Congress through the Secretary.” He said according to the records of his predecessor for the last two years, no detailed estimates on accounts of arsenals was made and only a general appropriation of $500,000 was funded on the probable wants of the department. Since he took over as Chief of Ordnance on 15 September 1863, he had assigned the related duty to his Principal Assistant [Captain Balch]. The $2,000,000 request in question had been submitted

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

to the secretary of war on 25 October 1863, and probably prepared some days before. Given, he had just taken over and was pressed with the associated responsibilities he had to rely on “the experience and faithfulness” of those assisting him. He had approved Balch’s estimate not doubting that it was “prepared with care and that it was based upon the well matured wants of the service … .” Dana also asked what had been done to prepare plans for extending manufacturing capabilities, which should have been part of the overall plan used to develop the estimate. Ramsay was able to list some such plans (those to manufacture metallic cartridges, expand musket manufacturing at Springfield Armory, establish an arsenal at Rock Island, etc.), but it is clear these were not a part of any master plan used to develop the estimate for congress. There were also several defensive statements by Ramsay in this letter such as the following: I would remark on this question in general that as Chief of Ordnance it is not expected that I should give my personal attention to all the details of the business going on in my Dept., but I am expected to depend, for the proper execution of such duties, upon the experience and fidelity of those who are associated with me, and upon whose earnest, honest cooperation greatly depend the preservation of that system of harmony and division of labor so indispensable to the prompt and correct dispatch of business. To Capt. Balch above all others, as my principle assistant, I have given a carte blanche only restricted of course by my approbation. In the department of improvements at Arsenals he has selected his own architects, draughtsman and other assistants, such as Mr. Reynolds of Springfield and Mr. Waters of Troy, of whom I personally know nothing; and I cannot but hope that with such resources as he himself had provided this preparatory work has been executed with all desirable accuracy.

Ramsay was correct in saying he could not have been expected to have been personally involved with the preparation of the budget submission and the associated detailed plans so soon after being assigned as Chief of Ordnance. But he should have verified the work had been done, or was being done, and was being properly documented. The submission was one of the most important responsibilities of his office and an increase in the appropriation from $500,000 to $2,000,000 was quite significant. However, while Ramsay may not have become directly involved with planning the expansion of the department’s manufacturing capability immediately upon assuming its leadership, it is clear that by this time he was well informed and engaged. He closed the letter with a statement of how the appropriation would be used, although it included a balance of $699,000 “not disposed of … .”61

Military Collector & Historian

This did not resolve the matter and Dana requested additional information, which was compiled by Balch. On 29 August, Ramsay responded to the War Department with Balch’s material, which the author has not found, and an endorsement that, together, sealed the fate of both men: Capt. Balch presents an array of statistics, much of which, if not all, he has derived from the archives of this office. From his statements and deductions others might be lead to the very erroneous conclusion that the Ordnance Department had been since the commencement of the revolution in a comatose state; that nothing had been effected, and that it is behind the wants and necessities of the country. Whilst I will not engage in an official controversy with Captain Balch, I cannot allow the possibility of such an inference without asserting that no department of the government has since and during the rebellion furnished its supplies more fully, more promptly or more satisfactorily to the troops in the field. Not a cent appropriated for its service has been misapplied or wasted, so far as the Ordnance Bureau has had the power to control its application; and the capacity of the Arsenals for manufacture and storage has been much enlarged; as much, I think as was possible during the time, and with the immense amount of other work of the most pressing necessity … . … In whatever respect the Ordnance Department may be behind the wants of the country (which it has however, by untiring exertions and labor so far supplied) it has resulted from a want of that authority and those means. The $2,000,000 specifically referred to as appropriated for improving the manufacturing capacity of the Arsenals, has only been available since the 1st July 1864, a period less than two months; and as much has been accomplished towards that object as the limited time and circumstances would allow.

FIG 15. Alexander B. Dyer, Chief of Ordnance, 1864–1874. Courtesy of the National Archives, Washington, DC.

Balch’s resignation be accepted but it was not. Balch renewed his request on the thirtieth, but it was again denied.66 He reported for duty at Charleston Arsenal on 21 August, but was there only briefly, as his resignation, submitted by another letter dated 18 September, was finally approved.67 Balch reported himself as being in New York on leave on 1 November and his resignation was made effective as of 1 December 1865.68 After his resignation, George Balch worked as an Perhaps it may be superfluous for me to notice that Capt. auditor, initially for the Erie Railroad and later for the Balch in his letter to me of the 5th instant states that he can New York City Board of Education. According to the U.S. find no data pertinent to the question as to the general plans Army Ordnance Corps & School website he also published of the Bureau for improving the manufacturing capacity of several technical volumes concerning the nature of the Arsenals; in this letter of the 29th instant he states that railroad property, plants, right-of-way, and other related the details of the estimate for that purpose were left to him, and goes on to say – first, generally for what Arsenals specific issues. While working for the Board of Education he amounts of the estimate were to be expended—and second, to worked answer your question as to the specific data upon which the plans are based.62

On 12 September 1864, General Ramsay was relieved and placed on the retired list. The following day Captain Balch was reassigned to the military academy.63 Alexander Dyer was assigned as the new Chief of Ordnance.64 If the above sequence of events was not enough to end Balch’s military career, General Ripley’s 19 September open letter certainly was. On 12 June 1865, General Dyer asked the adjutant general to issue orders to Balch to take charge of the arsenal in Charleston, South Carolina.65 Balch chose to submit a letter of resignation instead. Dyer recommended

… to promote patriotism in the children of the nation’s public schools. A motto he drafted in this connection, “We give our heads and hearts to God and our country; one country, one language, one flag!” was adopted by a number of schools in many states. It was George Balch who proposed that flagpoles be erected on or in front of all the public schools in the nation, and he became nationally known for his work on this project.69

One of Balch’s related publications is illustrated here. Most significantly in this regard, Balch’s above quoted “salute” played a significant role in development of our country’s Pledge of Allegiance. Balch died of apoplexy on 15 April 1894 at his home in New York City and was buried in Troy, New York. He was 65 years of age.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

Notes

FIGs 16, 17. George Balch’s patriotic primer for school children cover and spine. U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlisle, PA. Photos courtesy of Paul Davies.

FIG 18. George Balch late in life. Photo from Galusha Burchard, Balch, Genealogy of the Balch Families in America, https:// archive.org/details/genealogyofbalch00balc.

For their contributions to this article, the author would like to express his appreciation to Paul Davies, Max Guenthert, James D. Julia Auctioneers, Rock Island Auction Company, and Cowan Auctions.

1. Letter WD583 of 1858, Entry (E) 21, Record of the Office of the Chief of Ordnance, Record Group (RG) 156, National Archives, Washington, DC (NA). 2. Letter T409 of 1858, op. cit. 3. Vol. 33, page 415, E6, op cit. 4. Francis B. Heitman, Historical Register and Dictionary of the United States Army, 1789–1903 (Washington: GPO, 1903), gives the following summary for Balch: Graduated third in his class at the Military Academy and was given a brevet as second lieutenant on 1 July 1851. Made second lieutenant on 26 February 1853 and promoted to first lieutenant on 1 July 1854. Promoted to captain on 1 November 1861.Given brevets to major and lieutenant colonel on 13 March 1865 (the date a great many brevet promotions were awarded). He resigned on 1 December 1865 and died on 15 April 1894. 5. Balch did play a temporary role in management of the Springfield Armory during the transition from civilian management under Mr. George Dwight to military management under Captain Dyer. He is known to have signed some Springfield Armory letters and during the transition, on 16 August 1861, he wrote the Chief of Ordnance recommending the services of Dwight be retained for a while as assistant superintendent. Vol. 32, B521, E20, RG 156. 6. Captain Whiteley had also served as Inspecting Officer from 1855 to 1858. 7. Vol. 21, page 155, E6, RG 156. 8. For a July 1861 example related to a problem with the Colt revolver design, see Charles W. Pate, “Colt’s ‘Cavalry Cylinder’ Model 1860 Army Revolvers,” Man At Arms, 30, no. 4 (August 2008). 9. Letter H398 of 1861, E21, RG 156. 10. Vol. 21, page 162, E6, RG 156. 11. Letter B535, vol. 32, E20, RG 156. In this letter Balch asked who was to inspect the Sharps carbines. Ripley answered on 22 August 1861 (vol. 21, page 214, E6, RG 156) saying Captain Whitley would do the inspection. 12. Vol. 21, 213, E6, RG 156. 13. Ibid., 216. 14. Ibid., 295, 296. 15. Letter B540 of 1861, vol. 32, E20, RG 156. 16. Vol. 21, 216, E6, RG 156. 17. Letter, B430 of 1862, 31 March 1862, Box 258, E21, RG 156. 18. He asked for a junior officer to assist him in inspection work at Ames, 8 January 1862, Lieut./Capt. George T. Balch Letter-book, 10/26/1861–3/10/1862, 148 (hereafter Balch Letter-book), but the author could find no indication in Ordnance Department records that one was provided. 19. Balch Letter-book, 16, 26. 20. Vol. 21, 303, E6, RG 156. 21. Colt eventually reached that level of production but was slow in doing so. On 31 October 1861, Balch reported sending three hundred Colts to Washington Arsenal that day and said, “Col. Colt I believe gives us his whole product, but after five weeks trial he has as yet failed to go beyond 600 pistols per week although he promised 1000. I shall believe he can come up to that when I have that number presented for inspection.” B822 of 1861, Box 243, RG 156. 22. The U.S. Army much preferred .44 caliber revolvers to those of .36 (“Navy”) caliber. The Savage was a .36 caliber pistol and in addition to it the Army purchased at this time some Remington and Starr .36 caliber pistols on the open market. Some 11mm Lefaucheux pin-fire revolvers were bought in Europe but were very unpopular with the troops. 23. Balch Letter-book, 136. At the direction of the secretary of war,

Military Collector & Historian

General Ripley had given Poultney & Trimble a contract for ten thousand Smith carbines on 27 August 1861 to be delivered at the Massachusetts Arms Company factory. Vol. 53, E3, RG 156. On 14 December 1861, Assistant Secretary of War Scott wrote Ripley there were four hundred Smith carbines available and ordered them inspected and sent to Illinois for the 7th Illinois Cavalry. War Department (WD) 2056 of 1861, E21, RG 156. This first lot of four hundred carbines was delivered on 22 January 1862. 40th Congress, 2d Session: House of Representatives, Executive Document Number 99; extract reprinted in Stuart Mowbray, Civil War Arms Purchases and Deliveries (Woonsocket, RI: Mowbray Publishing, 2000). 24. Re Colt’s objection to Miles Moulton, see T409 of 1858, E21, RG 156, and WD649 of 1861, E21, RG 156. In 1858, Colt wrote to the secretary of war saying, “Some of the sub-inspectors have meddled improperly with the business of my armory and workmen. And I have to request that on such cases being made known to the Inspecting Officer, he will remove them from duty at my armory.” But Colt failed to provide specific charges against Moulton at the time and Captain Thornton declined to remove him. For Balch’s reassignment of Moulton, see Balch Letter-book, 10, 28, 32. 25. B954 and B973 of 1861, ED21, RG 156. The following 12 December 1861 letter in the Chief of Ordnance files from Colt explains Colt’s problem. He wanted to be paid and the Treasury Department was processing accounts very slowly. “Unless Govt pay me this week we cannot pay workmen without selling arms to trade, who offer cash on delivery & guarantee that my arms shall go into hands of Federal Volunteers.” He said his monthly payments would exceed $100,000 more than he had available to pay if the government disappointed him. Ripley forwarded Colt’s letter to the secretary saying that the vouchers had been sent to the Treasury’s 2d Auditor promptly. C–775 of 1861, E21, RG 156. 26. 7 December 1861, Balch to Ripley, Balch Letter-book, 118, and B973 of 1861, E21, RG 156. 27. Balch Letter-book, 108. 28. Ibid., 110–111. 29. Ibid., 124. 30. For the details on this decision, see Charles Pate, “Colt’s Percussion Revolver Design and the U.S. Army,” The Rampant Colt (Spring 2012). 31. Ames to Ripley, 21 January 1862, A53 of 1862, E21, RG 156. Some Colt-altered Harpers Ferry rifles are said to have Balch’s cartouche but upon close examination the cartouche is that of Samuel T. Bugbee, a civilian sub-inspector who was ordered to do the inspection by Capain Dyer (who was in charge of the inspection). 32. 15 November 1861, Balch Letter-book, 42. The letter book also has other letters related to the record-keeping problem. 33. WD1654 of 1861, E21, RG 156, and vol. 21, 389, E6, RG 156. 34. Balch Letter-book, 9, 13. Palmer, knowing he could not take direction from an officer not authorized to give him contractual orders, asked the chief of ordnance for authority to comply. On 2 November 1861, Ripley wrote to Palmer re his of the thirtieth and said Captain Balch was acting under instruction from the ordnance office and his directions should be complied with. Vol. 54, 39, E3, RG 156. Interestingly, there is no indication in E6 (Chief of Ordnance letters to Ordnance Department officers) Ripley advised Major Whitley of this order but he could have done so through an “Order For Supplies” and those records no longer exist. Regarding Colonel Dickey’s influence, he had been a prominent Illinois judge and political supporter of Stephen A. Douglas and had campaigned on his behalf. 35. Vol. 32, B418 and B449, E20, RG 156, and vol. 53, 286, E3, RG 156. 36. K226, M701, M706, E21, RG 156, and WD126. 37. Wiley Sword, Sharpshooter: Hiram Berdan, His Famous Sharpshooters and Their Sharps Rifles (Woonsocket, RI: Mowbray

Publishing, 1988), 64–65, quotes this 22 October 1861 letter from Berdan to Secretary of War Cameron, “We are exceedingly anxious to have these [Sharps rifles] improved breech-loaders with long bayonets. The price is $43 but this includes fly lock, double triggers and the long bayonet with sheath. The additional charge of 50 cents over the ordinary gun is certainly very reasonable for the extra work.” Significantly, the author could find no indication that Secretary Cameron, who is generally considered to have been disorganized to the point of incompetency, sent this letter to the Chief of Ordnance. Regarding the impact of the rifle order on carbine deliveries, in response to an order from Secretary Stanton to send carbines to General Rosecrans, on 7 April 1862 Ripley told Stanton none were available and Sharps would not be able to supply any until after delivery of the Berdan rifles in mid-to lateMay. Vol. 13, E5, RG 156. 38. Vol. 34, S373 and S394, E20, RG 156. 39. Vol. 22, 63, E6, RG 156. 40. B387 of 1862, E21, RG 156. 41. Vol. 22, 121, E6, RG 156. 42. B469 of 1862, E21, RG 156. 43. For the report of this commission, see Stuart C. Mowbray and Jennifer Heroux, eds., Civil War Arms Makers and Their Contracts, A Facsimile Reprint of the Report by the Commission on Ordnance and Ordnance Stores, 1862 (Lincoln, RI: Andrew Mowbray Publishers, 1998). 44. S554 of 1862, E21, RG 156. 45. Vol. 55, 65, E3, RG 156. 46. Inspection Ltr. Book, UD Finding Aid, E1322–A, 86, RG 156. 47. Vol. 21, 463, E6, RG 156. 48. Vol. 22, 95, E6, RG 156. 49. B430, 31 March 1862, E21, RG 156. 50. Vol. 22, 124, 130, 170, 177, E6, RG 156. 51. Vol. 22, 243, 250, 277, 294, E6, RG 156. 52. U.S. Senator, 1851–1857 and developer of the James system of rifled canon and projectiles. Charles T. James died 17 October 1862, so this gives a timeframe for Ripley’s charges against Balch. 53. Box 6, E971, RG 156. 54. See Robert V. Bruce, Lincoln and the Tools of War (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1956), especially pages 264–267. 55. Filed with WD358 of 1868, E21, RG 156. 56. Ibid. 57. Ibid. See also Bruce, Lincoln and the Tools of War, 275. 58. E21, filed with WD358 of 1868, RG 156. 59. WD805 of 1864, vol. 41, E20, RG 156. 60. Vol. 29, 86, E6, RG 156. 61. Vol. 15, 132, E5, RG 156. 62. Vol. 15, 160, E5, RG 156. While the author has not verified that all Ordnance Department organizations had submitted their plans, recommendations, and budget requests as required, they probably did. See Colonel Whiteley, Allegheny Arsenal to General Dyer, 13 October 64, E1075, 411–412, RG 156. It appears that the Ordnance Office (Captain Balch) had simply failed to analyze and consolidate them into a cohesive and defensible plan. 63. Box 286, B562 (the letter is A562 in E20) and B459, E21, RG 156. 64. Ramsay was subsequently allowed to return to his beloved Washington Arsenal as its commander. 65. Vol. 64, 150, E3, RG 156. 66. Vol. 64, 269, 315, E3, RG 156. 67. C208 and C229 of 1865, Box 299, E21, RG 156. 68. C285 of 1865, vol. 42, E20, RG 156, Heitman, Historical Register and Dictionary, 1, 185. While Heitman shows Balch ultimately received a brevet to lieutenant colonel, General Dyer’s 8 March 1865 recommendation to the secretary for brevet promotions included only a brevet to major for Balch while his contemporary, Captain Treadwell, and two of his juniors, Flagler and Mordecai, were also recommendations for lieutenant colonel. Vol. 15, 329, E5, RG 156. 69. www.goordnance.army.mil/hof/2000/2001/balch.html, accessed September 2016.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

Capt. John S. Wilson of Danville, Pennsylvania, 1840 to 1847 Randy W. Hackenburg

he Treaty of Fort Stanwix, on 5 November 1768, secured for the colony of Pennsylvania a huge swathe of Indian land. This new acquisition was organized as Northumberland County in 1772 and much of northeastern and central Pennsylvania fell within its bounds.1 Not long thereafter, it began to be broken up into more manageable divisions. In 1813, the area somewhat east of the confluence of the north and west branches of the Susquehanna River was established as Columbia County, with the village of Danville as its seat.2 Within a relatively short time the martial spirit of its citizens began to express itself. A uniformed militia company calling itself the Columbia Guards sprang up about 1817 and reached some degree of maturity by 1820, with its membership being composed of the community’s up and coming young men.3 John S. Wilson was born, presumably in Danville, on 30 May 1813. He grew up with the town, becoming a machinist in an area that was prominent in the iron industry. The first iron T rail made in America would be rolled there on 8 October 1845. Around 1841, John married Martha J. Wilson and they started a family.4 John joined the Columbia Guards at an unknown date, probably in the early to mid 1830s. His name first appears in connection with the company when the members elected him captain on 4 July 1840. He held this office until 15 August 1842. During his captaincy, the Danville Encampment took place from Tuesday, 24 May, through Friday, 27 May 1842, and was highlighted by a visit from General-inChief of the U.S. Army Winfield Scott. Scott reviewed and complimented the troops at Camp Washington and was paraded around the town by the thirteen foot and mounted companies, composing nearly 550 men. The Columbia Guards played a significant role as one of the host companies.5 Early in September 1842, John S. Wilson received the appointment as quartermaster of the 1st Brigade, 8th Division, Pennsylvania Militia, under command of Brig. Gen. Robert H. Hammond of Milton, Pennsylvania. General Hammond was the son of a local Revolutionary War hero and he had served as a Regular Army officer in the War of 1812, before becoming whole-heartedly absorbed in the state militia of east-central Pennsylvania. As brigade commander, he had played his part in the Danville Encampment, while at the same time renewing his relationship with General Scott.6 On 31 January 1846, John S. Wilson was again elected captain of the Columbia Guards and on 4 May of that year, the company turned out for their spring parade sporting brand new uniforms. Nine days later Congress declared war on Mexico. In a meeting 23 May 1846, the Columbia Guards voted to

offer their services to the governor, volunteering to be part of any regiment from Pennsylvania called into active service, being the second company in the state to do so. Of course, Captain Wilson took the lead in this initiative and handled the responsibilities of seeing that his company was recruited full and his men were prepared to depart on short notice. After much waiting, along with a few false starts and discouragements, Wilson received notification on 21 November 1846 the Columbia Guards had been accepted into the second regiment of volunteers from Pennsylvania. The company left Danville early on 28 December, arriving at the rendezvous in Pittsburgh on Sunday, 3 January 1847. Upon organization, the Columbia Guards became Company C, 2d Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteers. Between 9 and 15 January, the regiment was on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers between Pittsburgh and New Orleans.7 Camp Jackson, to which the regiment was assigned, proved to be flood-prone low ground—part of the 1815 battlefield. Captain Wilson was among the first to feel the effects of the unhealthy conditions in camp. By 21 January, he was already unwell and spent some time in the city trying to recuperate. Then, very early on the twenty-third, a severe thunder storm ravaged the camp. Wilson described the scene in a letter to his wife: [The] water could not run off and in the morning the water was between two and three feet deep, so that all our trunks and baggage was floating about and the men walking around and collecting the things[.] our clothes and books & everything was wet through.

The very next day, the Guards boarded a ship with two other companies and lay at anchor in the river until the twentieth. For a short time poor and scanty rations became a serious complaint. Then the illnesses set in and six of Wilson’s company deserted, with one more being discharged on a surgeon’s certificate of disability.8 For the next two weeks life aboard ship proved to be a nightmare. The close quarters, poor food, and general unhealthy conditions took their toll. To make matters worse, severe storms on the Gulf of Mexico brought on debilitating seasickness. Finally, on 13 February, the ship Ocean dropped anchor off Lobos Island, where the three companies were allowed to go ashore. However, they were segregated from the other troops for fear that the illnesses experienced on the Ocean might infect others. They reboarded the Ocean on 1 March, setting sail two days later. On 9 March, both Pennsylvania regiments landed on the beach near Vera Cruz. The city was subsequently surrounded and bombarded into submission, surrendering on 29 March.9 After commanding his company through the siege, John

Military Collector & Historian

Wilson’s health completely gave out, never having fully recovered from the sickness he had experienced in New Orleans. On 7 April, he received a furlough to return to the United States for recuperation and on the 9th, three of his company put him on a steamer for that purpose.10 That same day the company marched for the interior of Mexico. The ship, however, didn’t set out until 12 April and Wilson’s condition continued to deteriorate so that he died aboard ship just before the vessel could leave port. His body was taken ashore, placed in a casket, and buried in the Vera Cruz cemetery. Full military honors were provided by Company G, 2d Pennsylvania Regiment, the Cameron Guards of Harrisburg under Capt. Edward C. Williams. Companies B, D, and G just arrived at Vera Cruz because they had been quarantined on Lobos due to an outbreak of smallpox on their ship.11 It so happened that Gen. Robert H. Hammond, on whose militia staff Wilson had been quartermaster, was now serving as major and U.S. Army paymaster in Vera Cruz. Hammond conducted the Episcopal service and provided a eulogy for his dead comrade and friend.12 Lt. Col. John White Geary, the 2d Pennsylvania’s executive officer, sent Wilson’s personal effects home with the regiment’s surgeon Benjamin S. Muhlenberg, who had just resigned and was returning to the state.13 The Columbia Guards carried on with its duty through the campaign, entering Mexico City with Scott’s army on 14 September 1847 and doing their “bit” during the occupation. Company command devolved upon 1st Lt. Clarence H. Frick, who eventually got promoted to captain. Finally, the time to vacate Mexico arrived and all the details for the departure were completed. Captain Wilson’s commitment to his country, his community, and his Columbia Guards was not forgotten. A detail had his body disinterred and prepared for the trip home. When it reached New Orleans, a delegation of two men from Danville met them and took charge of the coffin containing the hero’s remains. These men booked passage separately from the Guards and arrived home in Danville on 25 July 1848, two days ahead of the company.14 The festivities surrounding the return of the volunteers lasted multiple days and spilled over into several surrounding communities. The somber part of the homecoming took place starting at 1100 on 28 July. It began at the home of Mrs. Wilson, where the coffin was draped with the, “United States Flag, and covered by the Military dress of the deceased.” A huge procession escorted the remains to Christ Episcopal Church where the Rev. Milton C. Lightner delivered “an appropriate discourse” to an immense congregation. Following the

FIG 1. Headstone of Capt. John S. Wilson in the Episcopal Cemetery in Danville, PA. All images courtesy of the author.

formal service, the procession navigated the streets to the old Presbyterian burial grounds, which had been purchased for that purpose in 1775. “It is supposed to have been the largest collection of People that ever assembled at the old grave yard to witness an interment.”15 In 1907, this cemetery was turned into a memorial park and in October, Wilson’s remains were removed to the Episcopal Cemetery (FIG 1) where they now rest. 16 It is totally hypothetical to surmise what may have been included with “the military dress” that adorned Captain Wilson’s casket. Could his militia accouterments have been part of that display? We will almost certainly never know the answer to that question. However, we do know his family did keep certain items which the captain used during his militia duties, and after several generations they were salvaged from an old home in Danville that was scheduled for demolition. The following is an inventory of what survives. The sword belt (FIG 2) is of black patent leather 1¾ inches wide, of the standard three-piece construction. The plate (FIG 3) is of gilt brass with a die struck American eagle tongue in a round laurel wreath, identical to O’Donnell & Campbell’s Plate 135.17 The waist size is now about thirtyone inches. The slings are of gilt brass mesh chain about half an inch wide by nearly a quarter inch thick. Wilson’s epaulettes (FIG 4) are tarnished gold in color,

FIG 2. John S. Wilson’s sword belt with mesh brass slings.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

FIG 3. Close-up of Wilson’s sword belt plate.

FIG 6. Close-up showing the epaulette’s crescent and button.

FIG 4. Top view of Wilson’s epaulettes.

FIG 7. Aiguillette worn by John S. Wilson as a brigade quartermaster in the Pennsylvania Militia from 1842 to 1846.

The aiguillette (FIG 7) is of quarter-inch plaited gilt cord. It terminates with a very plain “pencil” on one end and a bullion tassel on the other. This was obviously worn while Wilson was quartermaster of the 1st Brigade, 4th Division, FIG 5. View showing the underside and yellow silk lining of the Pennsylvania Militia, between 1842 and 1846. epaulettes. The cartridge box (FIGs 8 through 11) appears to have edged with bullion and having a bullion and sequin started out as a model 1839 box with white buff belt. At crescent. They are 6½ inches long and the strap is 3 some point it was modified by having the front flap very inches wide. The crescent is 3⅞ inches wide. The fringe cleanly and professionally cut off at its base, without is roughly four inches long by one-half inch in diameter. damaging any other part of the box. A new detachable The underside (FIG 5) is padded and lined with yellow silk shield shaped flap (FIG 12) was fabricated to replace cloth. The general staff buttons (FIG 6) bear the back mark it. It is formed of three plies of leather well worked and of “R. & W. ROBINSON/MAKER/ATTLEBOROUGH/ stitched together around the entire perimeter of the flap. It is attached by having three roundish tabs at the top MASS.”18

Military Collector & Historian FIG 9

FIG 10

FIG 11

FIG 8

FIG 8. Overall view of the modified model FIG 1839 cartridge box and belt. FIG 9. Model 1839 cartridge box underneath the modified personalized front flap. FIG 10. Reverse of the model 1839 cartridge box, showing the belt straps and the center roundish tab which helps to attach the modified front flap. FIG 11. Bottom view of the model 1839 cartridge box, showing the attachment of the belt straps. FIG 12. Model 1839 cartridge box with its customized front flap.

which fit neatly behind both belt ends and one in between them, forming a snug fit. On its front about a half-inch from the bottom point is what appears to be some sort of implement holder, measuring 3 inches wide by 1⅛ inches high. It is neatly stitched at the top and bottom, leaving both ends open. Just over a half-inch above this leather sleeve is a heavy beveled rectangular brass plate (FIG 13) 3 7/16 inches wide by 2 1/16 inches high. Upon this plate are engraved in script in three lines ,“J. S. Wilson/Danville,/Penna.” The plate is affixed to the flap by four rectangular tabs (FIG 14) coming through the back of the flap and being bent outwards to secure it. Each tab measures roughly a half-inch by a quarter-inch. This replacement flap is an excellent piece of workmanship throughout and begs the question, why didn’t the engraver do his work in the middle of this nice heavy plate? But then again, both the plate and the leather implement sleeve are slightly off center. The sturdy cartridge box belt is 2⅛ inches wide and is 57 inches long, excluding the tabs by which it is buckled to the box. On the back of the belt is a rectangular ink stamp (FIG 15) in which are the words “MADE BY/R. DINGEE/ NEW YORK”. The rectangle measures 2½ inches by 1⅝ inches and is 5 inches up from the top of the box and would have been against the wearer’s back. Another modification this accouterment experienced is that the belt has had a blackening applied over the exterior surface of the white buff leather (FIG 16). Now, after all these

years it has flaked off to some extent and been marred by careless storage, but the belt remains in remarkably good condition. When and for whatever reason the blackening was done will probably remain a mystery, but it certainly appears that it was done while still in the possession of John S. Wilson. Interestingly, a model 1839 cartridge box plate (FIGs 17 and 18) was with the cartridge box when discovered in that old building. It is in non-dug condition and poses this question: Could this be the plate that belonged to the original flap that was cut off this box? It measures 57mm by 88mm and the die strike is exceedingly like O’Donnell & Campbell’s plate 476. As well, it has the rounded letters, thin construction and shallow die to which these authors referred in connection with early plates.19 Another artifact that accompanied these things is an unusual stone (FIG 19). Although very nearly round, it is not a perfect sphere. It measures roughly 2 3/16 inches in diameter and weighs about eleven ounces. One thing that makes it interesting is on just one side of this stone ball there is a dark rusty looking stain, as if it had been burned. It having been reported by the U.S. soldiers that the Mexicans were firing just about everything but the kitchen sink from their cannon at Vera Cruz, could this have been an artillery projectile that Wilson picked up during the siege and had with his effects, which then Dr. Muhlenberg delivered to Martha Wilson? We will not likely know the answer to that question either, but it is an interesting thought. The remaining item is a letter written by John S. Wilson to his wife Martha in Danville, Columbia County, Pennsylvania. He wrote it on 21 February 1847, while on

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

FIG 13. Close-up of the heavy brass plate, identifying it as belonging to John S. Wilson of Danville, PA.

FIG 17. Model 1839 cartridge box plate that came with John S. Wilsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s accouterment collection.

FIG 14. Reverse of the replacement front flap showing how the plate is attached.

FIG 18. Reverse of the model 1839 cartridge box plate.

FIG 15. Underside of the cartridge box belt, showing the stamp of Robert Dingee, its maker.

FIG 19. Small spherical stone that accompanied John S. Wilsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s accouterments.

FIG 16. View of the exterior side of the cartridge box belt showing the blacking that was applied, presumably, sometime after its purchase.

Military Collector & Historian

Lobos Island, Mexico. In it he described the island and the general welfare of the troops. In order to calm her fears he said, “I am in good health and getting along as well as I can without you being with me.” He then went on to share his true feeling. “I can tell you that if I was at home again I would not be here.” The original letter is in terrible condition. It appears to have been handled often, being unfolded and refolded repeatedly until it literally fell apart. In order to keep it together some well-meaning person taped it together at virtually every seam, leaving horrible stains through both pieces of the paper. Several small sections are now missing from both pages as well. All this gives the impression this may have been the last letter he wrote home and his family took great comfort in repeatedly reviewing it. Especially poignant is the fact the letter was post-marked in New Orleans on 14 May 1847, not reaching his family until weeks after the news of his death. Acknowledgement: The author wishes to acknowledge Company Member Dr. JoAnna McDonald for technical assistance with this article. Also, the author admits to being subject to mistakes , omissions, and other human failings. Therefore, this article and the accompanying photos are far less than perfect. But, by the grace of God, I trust this article may prove to have some interest to its readers. Notes 1. Herbert C. Bell, ed., History of Northumberland County, Pennsylvania (Chicago, IL: Brown, Runk & Co., 1891), 82, (opposite) 152. Randy W. Hackenburg, Montour County And The American Revolution (Boiling Springs, PA: by the author, 2009), 1–4, (hereafter cited as Hackenburg, Montour Co. & Am. Rev.) 2. J. H. Battle, ed., History of Columbia and Montour Counties, Pennsylvania (Chicago: A. Warner & Co., 1887), Montour County Section 22, (hereafter cited as Battle). 3. Battle, 46. Randy W. Hackenburg, “The Columbia Guards, Danville’s Volunteer Infantry, 1817–1861” (unpublished master’s thesis, Bloomsburg State College, 1975), 16, (hereafter cited as Hackenburg, “Columbia Guards”). 4. Danville (Pennsylvania) Intelligencer, 7 May 1847, hereafter cited as Intelligencer; Battle, 101; National Archives, U.S. Census of 1850 (Montour County, PA, Danville, houses 127 and 491) and U.S. Census of 1860 (Montour County, PA, Danville, North Ward, house 1352). His father was Alexander Wilson, born in Ireland about 1778, a coppersmith. John S. and Martha had three children: Helen A., born about 1843; Alexander, born about 1845; and Francis, born probably in 1847 after his father went off to war. The 1850 census calls “Frances” a female, while “Francis” was listed as a male in 1860. We presume the 1850 census taker, seeing an infant in a dress mistakenly listed him as a female. Son Alexander served in the Civil War from 27 February 1865 to 25 August 1865 in New Company I, 104th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry and then lived in Danville until at least 1890.

5. Hackenburg, “Columbia Guards,” 21-25; Intelligencer, 10 July 1840, 20 and 27 May 1842, 3 June 1842, 26 August 1842, 9 September 1842. 6. Hackenburg, “Columbia Guards,” 25; Hackenburg, Montour Co. & Am. Rev., 49; Francis B. Heitman, Historical Register and Dictionary of The United States Army, From Its Organization, September 29, 1789 to March 2, 1903 (Washington: GPO, 1903), 1: 495–496. Robert H. Hammond’s father was Lt. David Hammond, who served from 1775 to 1783 in Pennsylvania’s Thompson’s Battalion and the 1st and 3d Pennsylvania Regiments of the Continental Line, being severely wounded in Wayne’s attack on the block house at Bergen Neck, NJ, in 1780. Robert Hammond was ensign, 3d lieutenant, and 2d lieutenant, 42d U.S. Infantry, 11 March 1814 to 13 June 1815—then 2d and 1st lieutenant, 5th U.S. Infantry, 17 May 1816 to 15 October 1820. He later served as Additional Paymaster of Volunteers from 30 May 1846 and Major, Paymaster, USA, from 29 June 1846 until his death on 2 June 1847. His son Thomas graduated from West Point in 1842 and was killed in action 6 December 1846 at San Pasqual, CA. 7. Hackenburg, “Columbia Guards,” 26–38; Intelligencer, 6 February 1846, 22, 29 May 1846; 5 June 1846; 18, 25 December 1846; 1, 15 January 1847. 8. Hackenburg, “Columbia Guards,” 38–40; John S. Wilson to Martha Wilson, 21 February 1847, author’s collection. 9. Hackenburg, “Columbia Guards,” 40–41. Pennsylvania State Archives, Adjutant General’s Collection (Anonymously written Columbia Guards diary, 29 January-3 March 1847); Intelligencer, 26 March 1847. 10. Hackenburg, “Columbia Guards,” 41–42; Intelligencer, 7 May 1847. The men who put Wilson on the steamer were Lt. Edward E. LeClerc, a lawyer from Wilkes Barre; Musician Jesse G. Clark, a printer from Danville and a correspondent to the Intelligencer; and Pvt. William H. Dietrick, a miller and also a correspondent to the Intelligencer. Dietrick later died 2 October 1847 of wounds received on 13 September in the storming of Chapultepec. 11. Hackenburg, “Columbia Guards,” 42; Intelligencer, 7 May 1847; Randy W. Hackenburg, Pennsylvania In The War with Mexico, The Volunteer Regiments (Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Publishing Co., Inc., 1992), 30–31, (hereafter Hackenburg, Mexican War). 12. Ibid. As previously noted, Hammond died 2 June 1847. His remaining son came from Milton to claim the body and return it home for burial. 13. Intelligencer, 7 May 1847; Hackenburg, Mexican War, 200. Muhlenberg resigned his commission in April and was returning to PA, thus becoming a handy courier for Wilson’s things. 14. Hackenburg, “Columbia Guards,” 48–51; Intelligencer, 14, 21, 28 July 1848. The delegation was William Morgan and Arthur W. Frick. Frick was the brother of Capt. (Dr.) Clarence H. Frick. He also had been the man who was elected captain of the Columbia Guards between 1842 and 1846. In 1849 he would be lured to the gold fields of California where he met an untimely end. 15. Intelligencer, 28 July 1848, 4 August 1848. 16. Cynthia S. Elder, The History of the Old Presbyterian Cemetery, Danville, PA (Danville, PA: Montour County Genealogical Society, 2009), 14, 22, 48. 17. Michael J. O’Donnell & J. Duncan Campbell, American Military Belt Plates (Alexandria, VA: O’Donnell Publications, 1996), 92, (hereafter O’Donnell & Campbell, Belt Plates). 18. Bruce S. Bazelon & William F. McGuinn, A Directory Of American Military Goods Dealers & Makers, 1785–1915 (Bazelon & McGuinn, 1990), 140. 19. O’Donnell & Campbell, Belt Plates, 298–301.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

Women’s Motor Corps of America Coat, 1917–1920 Marc W. Sammis

he Women’s Motor Corps of America was established between November 1917 and January 1918 as a volunteer organization of women drivers and mechanics. They first had to register with National League for Women’s Service (FIG 1), which was created in January 1917 just prior to the U.S. declaration of war against Germany in April. The organization prepared women for service and was divided into home economics, motor corps, social and welfare divisions, agriculture department, the canteen division, general services and publicity departments, and the overseas relief division.1 The women who joined these organizations were, for the most part, from the upper social classes and felt this as part of their “noblesse oblige” or noble obligation to the war effort. Most were centered in the larger metropolitan areas such as Boston, Chicago, Detroit, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and other cities.

FIG 1. Staff of the National League for Women’s Service, Motor Corps. Brooklyn Division, circa 1918. Courtesy of the Brooklyn Public Library, Brooklyn, NY.

FIG 2. National League for Women’s Service personnel at stretcher training, Fort Totten, NY, circa 1918. Courtesy of the Brooklyn Public Library, Brooklyn, NY.

The Women’s Motor Corps of America was one of many offshoots of the National League for Women’s Service and was one of the most demanding in terms of applicants. It was also the most militaristic in terms of regimentation. Requirements were: hold a state chauffer’s (driver’s) license and a mechanician’s (mechanic’s) license from an accredited mechanic’s school; take the oath of allegiance; pass a medical examination conducted by an Army doctor; receive a typhoid inoculation; and most importantly, own a car. They then underwent military training for one week to two weeks, which included infantry (close order) drill, practiced marksmanship, attended first aid, stretcher bearing, driving, and mechanics classes to name a few (FIG 2). They would then have weekly classes in those subjects during their term of enlistment. They would pass in review at the end of their training2 (FIG 3). The women were expected to not only drive but also maintain their own or assigned vehicles. Organized into chapters, their purpose was for emergency needs and they worked closely with area hospitals in the United States. Private automobiles were required as the chapters had to wait until ambulances and other trucks were either bought or donated to them (FIGs 4, 5). Their main task was to transport the injured and sick. Chapters near ports also met transports coming back from France and drove the wounded and sick to the hospital with which their particular chapter was associated. They also transported supplies and material for the hospitals and nearby camps. They were continually on call and had to report immediately when summoned. Failure to do so could result in discharge from the organization. The Women’s Motor Corps of America was one of many women’s organizations established during World War I. The exact number of women who joined the motor corps is uncertain but the estimate is between 3,000 and 5,000 (FIG 6). While some members of the Women’s Motor Corps of America went overseas to France during the war, most did not.

FIG 3. Women’s Motor Corps of America on parade, New York City, circa 1918. Courtesy of the Brooklyn Public Library, Brooklyn, NY.

Military Collector & Historian FIG 7

FIG 9

FIG 8

FIG 4. Newly purchased ambulance for the New York Chapter with Women’s Motor Corps of America insignia stenciled onto the side, circa 1918. Courtesy of the Museum of the City of New York. FIGs 7, 8, 9. Uniform coat showing the blue tabs with embroidered insigina. Collar tabs showing the embroidered Women’s Motor Transport Corps insignia. Right sleeve showing the sergeant of Hospital Corps chevron, honorable discharge chevron, and blue felt war service chevron. All courtesy of the U.S. Army Transportation Museum, Fort Eustis, VA.

a stand-and-fall collar, and notch lapels. The sleeve cuffs are pointed after the British style. There are two pleated FIG 5. Ambulances of the Women’s Motor Corps of America in breast patch pockets and two large pockets on the coat line formation ready for inspection, circa 1918. Courtesy of the skirt. All four pockets have flaps with buttons. Three large Brooklyn Public Library, Brooklyn, NY. buttons along the front and one at each skirt pocket. A faux waist belt is sewn over the waist seam hiding it from view. One small button at the breast pockets. All are the dull bronze U.S. Army. The collar tabs are “King’s Blue” (also called Royal Blue) felt with the winged wheel insignia of the Women’s Motor Corps of America embroidered onto it with silver thread (FIGs 7, 8). Some uniform coats had red collar tabs. The reason for the difference is not known. The coat is of cotton, with the body unlined and machine stitched. The chevrons are all hand stitched onto the sleeve but do not penetrate into the sleeve lining. There are several holes, most probably caused by moths, less than ⅛-inch (3mm) on the collar tabs with one hole approximately ¼-inch (6mm). No holes appear on the coat body itself. There are many stains from various causes and what appears to be some foxing. Because of FIG 6. Lincoln, NE, Chapter of the Women’s Motor Corps of America, circa 1918. Courtesy of the Lincoln, NE, Historical Society. this, a dry vacuum was used to clean the coat rather than Different women’s organizations wore uniforms unique soap and water. A label for Franklin Simon & Company to their particular organization. The patterns, color, is sewn at the neck. Franklin Simon & Company was a accessories, and insignia showed which organization a department store chain specializing in women’s fashions person belonged to. The coat in this case is from a member and furnishings based in New York City. The store was conceived as a collection of specialty shops rather than a of the Women’s Motor Corps of America. traditional department store and closed in 1979. While the Women’s Motor Corps of America Coat label doesn’t mean the individual who wore this coat lived This uniform coat is the regulation cut and is based in the New York City area, it also doesn’t seem necessary upon the design of a similar British organization. They for a women in another area to purchase the coat from were purchased by the individual who had them custom Franklin Simon if there are equally fashionable clothiers made. The coat is olive drab, long, single breasted with in their respective city or area. So we may suspect the

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

FIG 10. San Diego, CA, Chapter of the Women’s Motor Corps of America showing the various ways of wearing the Sam Browne belts, circa 1918. Courtesy of the San Diego Historical Society, San Diego, CA.

owner was from the New York City area. Their uniform would also have consisted of a soft service cap or an overseas style cap, a waist (shirt), cravat, and a long skirt that buttoned along the middle in the front. The service cap had a band around it while cord edge braid along the edge of the curtain appears on some, but not all, of the overseas style caps. The color apparently match that of the collar tabs being either King’s Blue or red. Rank structure and insignia were similar to the U.S. Army’s, thus the sergeant of the Hospital Corps chevron on the right sleeve. The dark blue chevron is for less than six months service. The red chevron is an honorable discharge chevron worn upside down and on the opposite sleeve per regulation3 (FIG 9). Another interesting feature is the officers among them wore Sam Browne belts, which were unauthorized for stateside Army officers. Some wore no belts. Some belts with no straps; some had the straps over the left shoulder and some over the right shoulder (FIG 10). The author has not been able to find references for the reason for these different means of wearing the belts but looking at photographs, it appears it may have had something to do with the rank of the individual. A complete uniform identified to Leonila Durieux Tedford is in the collection at the Women in Military Service for America, Alexandria, Virginia.4 Another uniform is in the collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.5 It does not identify to whom the uniform may have belonged. PITTSBURGH CHAPTER STATISTICS Below are listed the statistics of the Pittsburgh Chapter of the Women’s Motor Corps of America during their time of service (1 December 1917–1 January 1920) as documented in their official records published in 1921.6 These totals represent service for both World War I and the influenza epidemic of 1918–1919. They give a good account of the contribution to the war effort by the Women’s Motor Corps of America and other volunteer organizations. Served General Hospital No. 24 197—women served during all or part of the time period 3,348—articles lifted at depots totaling 489,118 pounds

389—cases shipped to auxillaries totaling 40,000 pounds 7,560—goods shipped to Division HQ in Philadelphia totaling 600,000 pounds Activities: 1 November 1918–1 November 1919 60,162—containers handled totaling 5,420,285 pounds 2,711 tons —total tonnage 3,325.5 gallons—amount of gasoline consumed 83.75 gallons—amount of oil consumed 64,292 miles—total miles driven 14,636—hours of service rendered Activities December 1919 – May 1920 18,714—containers transported by large trucks 7,165—containers transported by small trucks 25,879—total of containers carried Vehicles in use The vehicles listed below were used by the Pittsburgh chapter at no cost to the Red Cross or government. As was the case with all chapters, costs were paid by the chapter members. 7—½-ton to 2-ton trucks 43—private automobiles owned by members 200—automobiles available for use in emergencies 600—trucks available for use in emergencies

The Khaki Girls The early twentieth century saw a great demand by the public for adventure stories. Series such as Nancy Drew, Tom Swift, the Hardy Boys, and others now long forgotten, all got their start around the time of World War I. The trend continued after the war and one of the new adventure series was “The Khaki Girls” written by Edna Brooks. The stories followed the adventures in New York and France of several women who join the Women’s Motor Corps of America. A total of six books in all were written in the early 1920s before the series ended. Notes 1. Columbia (University) Daily Spectator, 16 July 1917, spectatorarchive.library.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/ Columbia?a=d&d=cs19179716-01.2.11, accessed 3 February 2017. 2. “The National League of Women’s Services, 1918,” Brooklyn Public Library, 29 July 2010, brooklynology.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/ post/2010/07/09/national-league-of-women’s-services, 1918, accessed 3 February 2015. 3. Jill Halcomb Smith, Dressed for Duty, America’s Women in Uniform, 1898–1973 (San Jose, CA: R. James Bender Publishing, 2001), I: 372–376. 4. Ibid. 5. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Online Collection, Franklin Simon & Co., www.metmuseum.org/colleciton/the-colleciton-online/ search/155838, accessed 5 January 2015. 6. The Pittsburgh Chapter, American Red Cross: A History of the Activities of the Chapter from its Organization to January 1, 1921, with an Appendix Containing All Available Names of Those who Rendered Red Cross Service During that Period (Pittsburgh, PA: American Red Cross, Pittsburgh Chapter, 1921), 146–152.

Military Collector & Historian

Clothing the Confederate Soldiers of South Carolina, 1861–1865 Ron Field Part 1: The State Quartermaster Department ollowing the act of secession in South Carolina on 20 December 1860, there was a great need for uniforms and clothing for the state troops being organized to defend the short-lived republic and those that went on to fight for the Confederacy. Much of the early work of clothing these volunteers was accomplished by the philanthropic efforts of the Rev. Anthony Toomer Porter, a Roman Catholic priest who had begun an industrial school for girls on Ashley Street, Charleston, during 1858.1 Since March 1860, the Industrial School for Girls had received cut clothing, including jackets and pants, from C. F. Jackson & Co., clothiers located at 199 King Street, Charleston. These garments were sewn and finished at the school and then sold at Jackson’s “Clothing Emporium,” with some of the proceeds going to the girls who worked for Porter.2 At the beginning of January 1861, Porter approached the State Quartermaster Department run by Col. Lewis M. Hatch, who was a commission merchant in Charleston and quartermaster-general of the state militia before the war, and entered into an agreement with him by which the energies of the Industrial School would be devoted to assisting in the manufacture and supply of uniforms for volunteers in state service. Of this agreement, Porter recalled, “I went to Hayne Street (office of the Quartermaster-General, South Carolina Militia.), and made a contract for hundreds of pieces of plain underwear. Gradually we grew more ambitious, and took contracts for common pantaloons and coats.”3 In order to accommodate contracts for state uniforms, Porter employed 59 women, some of whom worked 32 sewing machines. Meanwhile, C. F. Jackson and Co. continued to cut the cloth and press the finished articles of clothing. By 9 January 1861, a notice published in the Charleston press by the Quartermaster Department requested, “Those Ladies who wish to ‘sew’ for this Department will please apply to Rev. A. Toomer Porter, at Industrial School.”4 On 25 January, Hatch advertised for providers/makers of, “DARK GREY CLOTH suitable for making uniforms for the troops.” Applicants were to “send in samples, with the prices attached,” stating the number of yards they had on hand and whether “the same be few or many.” At the same time he requested all those “willing to work on the one thousand uniforms wanted for Col. Gregg’s Regiment” to “send in their names to the Rev. Mr. Porter,” and advised the work was to be “sent to the homes of those wishing to do it.”5 Despite these efforts, the output of the Industrial School was insufficient to meet the needs of the Quartermaster Department, and it appears to have produced only a small amount of the clothing required, being paid a mere $508.87 by the end of March 1861.6

Meanwhile, on 1 February 1861, Colonel Hatch had received $4,000 from the state treasury in order “to pay in part for the Cloth and Labor necessary for uniforms for Col. Gregg’s Regiment.” Twenty days later, he received a further $3,500 to be expended “in preparation for Clothing for Col. Gregg’s Regt. as contracted for with Edwin Bates & Co.” Established in Charleston no later than 1856, E. Bates and Co. were manufacturers and wholesale dealers in clothing located at 118 Meeting Street, Charleston.7 By the end of March 1861, this firm had completed one thousand uniforms for the 1st South Carolina Volunteers, commanded by Col. Maxcy Gregg, made from dark gray cloth which had been produced at the mill owned by James G. Gibbes and Co., of Columbia.8 The frock coats issued to the 1st South Carolina were based in certain respects upon M1851 U.S. dress regulations and had nine-button fronts with tape edging on the collar but no cuff trim. Also supplied were gray trousers, probably trimmed with tape on the outer seams, and gray or blue chasseur-pattern caps, the latter being produced by hatters Williams and Brown of 277 King Street, Charleston.9 The Industrial School continued to supply uniforms and clothing throughout 1861 and much of 1862 and eventually had 350 out-workers as well as the 59 women working at the school.10 An invoice in the State Quartermaster Department records reveals during July it supplied Hatch with “50 Inf[antr]y Uniforms & 150 Shirts.”11 The fact the former were specified for infantry indicates the state uniforms had some sort of branch-of-service color trim, which was probably dark blue or black for infantry, red for artillery, and yellow for cavalry. During the same month the school began sewing equipage and was paid $27.90 for, “Making 259 Knapsacks.”12 Toward the end of July 1861, Toomer Porter departed for Virginia as chaplain of the Washington Light Infantry Volunteers, Co. A, Infantry Battalion, Hampton’s Legion. Following his departure, the Industrial School appears to have been taken over by the Quartermaster Department “in the name of the state.” Shortly after his arrival in Virginia, Porter was tasked by Col. Wade Hampton with purchasing cloth and arranging for new uniforms to be made for the Legion, as its men had a distinctly ragged appearance after heavy involvement in the fighting at Manassas. According to his memoirs, Porter searched without success for cloth in Virginia and North Carolina, but eventually purchased from “Messrs. Wm. Ravenel and Co. [of Charleston] … ten different kinds of cloth for the ten companies ...” of the Legion which he had duly shipped to the Industrial School.13 Meanwhile, in Columbia, South Carolina, James G. Gibbes and Co. advertised on 14 August for “15 or 20 GIRLS OR YOUNG WOMEN, to learn to weave.”14 This

was probably to replace workmen who had volunteered for military service in the Confederate Army. Twelve days later Colonel Hatch invited estimates for “making uniforms, under-clothing &c., for State Troops,” which was presumably to fill in part Porter’s order for Hampton’s Legion.15 On 3 September, he also advertised for “500 COAT HANDS and 500 PANTALOON HANDS.”16 Assisted now by Col. Sanders L. Glover, he had, according to a report in the Charleston Mercury “constantly employed at the Quartermaster’s department, under the foremanship of Messrs. H. Koppel, and D. H. Kemme, forty experienced cutters, who supply about 1500 needlewomen, who make a fair weekly salary. To Mr. J. Russell Baker is entrusted the no small task of keeping the accounts of the operatives, the number of parcels given to each, and paying off when the work is returned.”17 Hermann Koppel was a merchant tailor located at 306 King Street and D. H. Kemme was a draper and tailor located at 29 Broad Street, Charleston.18 These two individuals received payment between 14 December 1861 and 31 January 1862 for cutting “3019 frock coats, 1157 overcoats, 113 pair of pants, 168 flannel shirts, 21 ‘shirts’ and 13 pairs of drawers.”19 Serving as an assistant quartermaster and “travelling agent of the Quarter Master Department” since at least June 1861, J. Russell Baker was a broker, auctioneer, and commission agent with offices located on State Street in Charleston.20 One of a number of voluntary organizations which supplemented the work of the State Quartermaster Department, was the Soldiers’ Relief Association established in July 1861 with a depository for clothing and other supplies at Chalmers Street, Charleston.21 Upon visiting the depository in mid-September 1861, a correspondent of the Charleston Mercury wrote: On the first floor donations and contributions and finished work are being received; boxes packed and shipped; bales of domestics and flannels and rolls of woollens are being opened, and with the work of the Quartermaster, distributed to the various members; while in the hall above from fifty to sixty ladies, young and old, from the matron of 80 down to the girl of 10, may be seen busily spinning, plying the needles and working the various sewing machines for the purpose of preparing gratuitously warm and comfortable uniforms and garments … . 22

Among the units supplied by the Soldiers’ Relief Association were the South Carolina Zouave Volunteers (uniform suits), Carolina Light Infantry Volunteers (blankets), 23d South Carolina (Hatch’s) (jackets and pants), plus other items supplied to the 1st South Carolina (Hagood’s), 2d South Carolina (Kershaw’s), 7th South Carolina (Bacon’s), and the 10th South Carolina (Manigault’s).23 On 16 September 1861, the Charleston Mercury praised the efforts of the State Quartermaster’s Department, Industrial School, and aid societies, stating they had been doing “a large amount of good for the honest and industrious poor of our city, and while paying a full and remunerative price for labor, they find that they can

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

manufacture their own goods much cheaper than could be accomplished by contract, thereby saving the State a large amount.”24 Following the departure of Colonel Hatch to command the Coast Rangers, which became the 23d South Carolina Volunteers, Sanders L. Glover was appointed State Quartermaster General. On 8 October 1861, Glover advised Gov. Francis Pickens most members of the South Carolina volunteers in state service were “supplied with a full outfit and most of them partially so.” At the same time he expressed concern that James G. Gibbes and Co. had advised him they could not “continue to supply the cloth at contract price,” which indicates this firm had been supplying cloth for uniforms since at least March of that year. Pickens responded, “Hold Gibbes to his contract.”25 In a letter published in both the Columbia and Charleston press during April 1862, Gibbes defended his reason for price increases. Despite appeals to “the Governor & Executive Council” to excuse his overseers and foremen from military duty, having lost forty-seven of his workforce to military service. He further explained work had fallen off from “the consumption of eight bales of cotton per day down to two,” and his expenses were much greater.26 As a result of legislation approved on 6 March 1861, the Confederate government had established the commutation system whereby volunteers called into Confederate service would receive $21 every six months in order to pay for uniform and clothing. Those men who provided their own uniform had received their full commutation. When the state or various local agencies provided clothing directly to a regiment, battalion, or company, the commutation money was paid by the unit to the state or agency or the account was settled at a higher level. As the value of Confederate currency fell during 1861, the weakness of this system became apparent and caused major supply problems in South Carolina and other states in the Confederacy. On 26 September 1861, Sanders Glover established a supply system to combat “the greatly advanced cost of material,” while at the same time receiving an insufficient amount of money via the Confederate commutation system, by requesting help from the various aid societies and associations throughout the State.27 He established depots in both Columbia and Charleston for “the reception of all donations of clothing” including “Frock Coats and Pantaloons, of heavy goods; Shirts and Drawers, of heavy Homespun or Flannel; Wool or heavy Cotton Socks; Blankets, new or second hand; also, heavy Shoes.” When aid societies were not able to provide both material and labor, the quartermaster undertook to reimburse them the cost of all material, at a rate not exceeding that accrued by the department in

Military Collector & Historian

making clothing itself.28 After a prolonged illness, Sanders L. Glover died on 27 May 1862 and Col. James Jones, of Columbia, was appointed State Quartermaster General on 5 June 1862.29 Probably in anticipation of this appointment, on 30 May 1862, the Executive Council of South Carolina authorized the change of location of “the Bureau of the Quarter Master General’s Department” from Charleston to Columbia “until further orders.”30 On 24 July 1862, the system established under Sanders Glover on 26 September 1861 of providing clothing with help from volunteer aid societies, was ended.31 On 30 August 1862, James Chestnut, Jr., Chief of the Department of the Military of South Carolina, reported to Governor Pickens stating the Quartermaster Department had purchased, manufactured, and received since 1 January 1862, 8,265 “Coats,” 4,260 “Over-Coats,” 4,977 “Pants,” 898 “Drawers,” 5,452 “Shirts,” 6,074 “Socks (pairs),” 3,325 “Shoes (p’rs),” 2,545 “Hats,” 2,430 “Caps,” 10,293 “Blankets,” 6,078 “Knapsacks,” 2,733 “Haversacks,” and 2,554 “Canteens.” He also advised he had “failed to obtain any satisfactory records or returns, or any showing whatever, previous to the administration of the late Col. Glover.” Hence, he only provided estimates of goods supplied under the direction of Lewis Hatch, much of which had been delivered directly to the commanders of volunteer regiments and companies, without properly balanced records and quarterly returns being produced.32 Thus, by 1 July 1862, he had only provided estimated totals of the amount of goods on hand as follows: 8,171 “Coats,” 2,508 “Over-Coats,” 4,219 “Pants,” 837 “Drawers,” 501 “Shirts,” 2,516 “Socks (pairs),” 60 “Shoes (p’rs),” 174 “Hats,” 665 “Caps,” 7092 “Blankets,” 2,867 “Knapsacks,” 6,547 “Haversacks,” and 1,352 “Canteens.”33 In order to ensure properly balanced accounts were provided, all officers of the Quartermaster Department were required within twenty days of 8 August 1862, to “account for all monies and public property” received.34 This resulted in a much more reliable system of bookkeeping and led to the production of accurate and complete quarterly returns of clothing received and issued for the last two quarters of 1862. According to earlier clothing vouchers and these returns, both the Industrial School and the Soldiers’ Relief Association continued to supply goods, with the former back under the management of the Rev. Anthony Toomer Porter. Producing small amounts of clothing throughout 1861 and much of 1862, the Industrial School received payment of $5,562 for “402 suits of uniforms” and “96 Pairs Pants” on 17 December 1861 (see FIG 1). During 1862, it appears to have supplied only shirts. By 26 May 1862, it had produced 353 shirts for $63.24 (see FIG 2).35

FIGs 1 & 2. These two vouchers produced by the State Quartermaster Department for uniform clothing supplied by the “Industrial School for Girls” on Ashley Street, Charleston, during December 1861 and May 1862. The fact both payments were received by the Rev. Anthony Toomer Porter indicates he had returned to the city to manage the running of the school after service in Virginia with the Hampton Legion. Courtesy of the South Carolina Department of Archives and History.

According to the quarterly returns for 30 September and 31 December 1862, it supplied a total of 655 “Flannel Shirts.” The Soldiers’ Relief Association produced for the same time period 1,615 “Cotton Drawers,” 783 “Cotton Shirts,” 616 “Hickory Shirts,” 24 “Flannel Shirts,” and 48 “Tweed Shirts.”36 On 8 October 1862, the Confederate commutation system was ended because the issue of “Soldiers’ Clothing” directly from Confederate clothing depots was considered to be efficient enough to cope with demand.37 As a result the South Carolina State Quartermaster Department began to wind down its operations by 24 October 1862, when Jones was authorised by the Executive Council to sell to the Confederate Government “such supplies, now in his department, as they may require; provided the same be issued to the troops from South Carolina.”38 Four days later, the Charleston Daily Courier reported about “7000 coats, 2000 over-coats, 3000 pairs of pants and 6000 blankets” had been handed over to Col. Samuel McGowan, who was in Charleston recuperating from a wound received at Second Manassas, and who was acting for the Quartermaster General of the Confederate States.39 However, at the end of 1862, the State Quartermaster Department was still clothing the volunteers of South Carolina and had on hand 8,228 “Coats,” 2,996 “Pants,” 2,507 “Overcoats,” 863 “Cotton Drawers,” 58 “Cotton

Shirts,” 135 “Flannel Drawers,” 277 “Flannel Shirts,” 6 “Hickory Shirts,” 2,402 “[pairs] Socks,” 7,007 “Blankets,” 4 “[pairs] Shoes,” 127 “Woolen Capes,” 1,500 “Haverlocks [sic],” 665 “Caps,” and 20 “Hats.”40 It was not until the end of March 1863, the Confederate “Clothing Department” established on East Bay, near Adger’s North wharf, in Charleston by Capt. George I. Crafts, C.S. Assistant Quartermaster, began to issue uniform clothing to troops in South Carolina.41 Presumably any goods still in state hands by then were turned over to the Confederate Quartermaster Department.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

Acknowledgements

FIGs 5 & 6. Probably made from the striped osnaburg, otherwise known as “Hickory Shirting,” as advertised by James G. Gibbes & Co. during December 1861, and sewn together by the Industrial School, this shirt was also worn by Pvt. J. W. Gibson when he was killed in action at Secessionville. Courtesy of the Charleston Museum.

FIGs 3 & 4. The frock coat and trousers worn by Pvt. James Wiley Gibson of the Orangeburg Artillery (Co. I), 2d South Carolina Artillery Volunteers, also known originally as the Lamar Artillery Battalion, or 1st South Carolina Artillery Volunteers, commanded by Col. Thomas G. Lamar, are believed to have been sewn together at the “Industrial School for Girls” from cloth produced at the Columbia Mills of James G. Gibbes & Co. Probably issued during November-December 1861, the seven-button coat is edged around collar, front, V-shaped cuffs, and rear-skirt pockets with what was once red piping which has faded to pink. It has a small watch pocket at the front waist and side pockets in the coat tails. The trousers have a six-button fly, small buckled belt in rear, and what were probably once red seam stripes. Both garments are lined with white homespun. Gibson was killed at Secessionville on 16 June 1862. The hole in the coat’s left breast indicates where the musket ball pierced his heart, ricocheted off his sternum or spine, and exited beneath his right shoulder blade. Gibson was one of six men in his company killed at Secessionville. Reporting their loss, the Charleston Mercury stated on 20 June 1862, “Every man acted with the spirit that fills the breast of every true Carolinian.” Courtesy of the Charleston Museum.

FIG 7. Tentatively identified as Jonathan McPherson who enlisted in the Columbia Greys, 2d South Carolina Volunteers, this enlisted man wears a frock coat of the type produced via the State Quartermaster Department in 1861–62. With an eightbutton front and plain cuffs, its collar is trimmed all around and has a false button hole of the same color trim which terminates in a small button which probably also bore the state Palmetto device. Note the embroidered palmetto tree on his cap front. Ninthplate ambrotype courtesy of Ron Field.

I am greatly indebted to Patrick McCawley, archivist of the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia, South Carolina; C. J. Grahame Long, chief curator of the Charleston Museum; Jan Hiester, historic textiles curator, Charleston Museum; and W. Allen Roberson, director of the South Carolina Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum. Without their generous help this article would not have been possible. Thanks are also due to Company Fellow Les Jensen, curator of arms & armor, West Point Museum.

Military Collector & Historian FIG 8

FIG 9

FIG 11

FIG 12

FIG 10

FIGs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. The coat of Cpl. Robert Hayne Bomar of the Washington Light Infantry Volunteers, Hampton’s Legion, is possibly another example of the work produced by the State Quartermaster Department and Industrial School. Bomar enrolled on 12 June 1861 and was wounded at the First Battle of Manassas. Not sufficiently recovered to wear his new uniform, it is probable the surviving coat and pants were sent home to him after his discharge from hospital on 1 October 1861. Both the coat and trousers are of a grayishbrown jeans material of mixed cotton and wool, which was originally gray, as may be seen in an area once covered by the trousers stripe. The coat has one half-inch-wide light yellow or buff tape edging round the collar, and eight buttons on the front, which are brass eagle buttons with a “V” on the shield, of the type made by Scovills & Co., Waterbury, CT, for enlisted men of the United States Army’s Regiment of Voltigeurs and Foot Riflemen (1847–1848) in the Mexican War. These were attached by pushing the looped shank of each button through the coat cloth. A long piece of braid was then threaded through each shank. Not coincidentally, the Regiment of Voltigeurs was originally designed to be a “legion” comprising infantry, artillery, and dragoons, and to have a uniform of “dark gray,” but with yellow trimming. The sleeves were plain without buttons or slashes. As with the Gibson coat, the rear skirts have one pocket set inside each skirt. Bomar’s trousers were also originally gray with a strip of one inch-wide light yellow or buff braid on the outer seam. The rear of the trousers displayed a slit some 4 inches long, originally held together to adjust the waist size by two 4½-inch-long straps probably once fastened by a buckle. In a style frequently found in U.S. Army officers’ trousers, two “frog pockets” in the front were fastened by small buttons. Courtesy of the South Carolina Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

FIG 13. Partially identified as Henry Schmidt, this image originally had a label attached to the mat stating “German Rifles, Charleston, S.C.” The interior of the case was also inscribed “A. [or possibly H.] Schmidt, Charleston, S.C.” Originally formed in 1837, the German Riflemen made up part of the newly organized 1st Regiment of Rifles, South Carolina Militia, in 1859 and had about 100 men enrolled by November 1860. Recruited for Confederate service as the German Volunteers, this company was accepted into the Hampton Legion as Co. H of the infantry battalion on 22 August 1861. It was converted to artillery on 1 November 1861 and after the reorganization of the Legion in July 1862 became an independent battery known as the German Light Artillery. Enlisting as a private in the German Volunteers at Charleston on 22 August 1861, nineteen-year-old Schmidt served with the legion in Virginia until its reorganization, but does not appear to have been listed as a member of the independent battery. He wears an example of the type of uniform issued to the legion in September-October 1861. These were made by the state quartermaster department in Charleston with cloth acquired from Ravenel & Co. by the Rev. A. Porter Toomer. The trim on the collar and cuffs of Schmidt’s frock coat was painted green by the photographer’s artist, which would have been consistent with the appropriate branch-service color for riflemen. Close examination of the buttons reveals the Federal-style “eagle” pattern with shield containing the letter “V,” as seen on the coat issued to Cpl. Robert Hayne Bomar, Washington Light Infantry Volunteers (Co. A), Hampton Legion, in 1861. Schmidt must have been in a hurry to fasten his buttons for the photographer, as he has buttoned them up incorrectly. Quarter-plate ruby ambrotype courtesy of Ron Field collection.

Notes 1. See A. Toomer Porter, Led On! Step by Step: Scenes from Clerical, Military, Educational, and Plantation Life in the South, 18281898 – An Autobiography (G. P. Putnam’s New York & London: The Knickerbocker Press, 1898). The Rev. Anthony Toomer Porter was born 31 January, 1828, in Georgetown District, South Carolina, on the rice plantation of his parents John Porter and Esther Ann Toomer. Educated in Georgetown and Charleston, he entered the Episcopal ministry in 1854 and by 1860 was rector

of the Church of the Holy Communion in Charleston. After the war he founded the Episcopal Holy Communion Church Institute, which was a school for the education of boys orphaned or left destitute by the Civil War. Called Porter Academy after 1882, the school added a military department in 1887, and is known today as Porter Gaud School. Porter died on 30 March 1902, and is buried in Prince George Winyah Cemetery, in Georgetown. 2. “Charleston Clothing,” Charleston Mercury, 5 April 1860, 1:3. 3. Porter, Led On!, 108. Hatch was aided by Assistant QuartermasterGeneral Edmund J. Dawson. See Charleston Mercury, 9 January 1861, 2: 2. 4. “Headquarters, Quartermaster’s Department,” Charleston Mercury, 9 January 1861, 2: 2. 5. “Headquarters, S.C.M.—Quartermaster’s Department,” Charleston Mercury, 25 January 1861, 2: 3. 6. Accounts, 20 March 1861 (5126176), Records of the Comptroller General, State Auditor, Papers of the Quartermaster Department, South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia, SC, (hereafter RCG, State Archives). 7. RCG, Requisition, 31 January 1861 and 21 February 1861, State Archives; and “Charleston Business Directory,” Charleston Mercury, 9 March 1861, 4: 7. A letter written from Morris Island by Pvt. W. H. Abney, of the Edgefield Riflemen (Co. C), 1st South Carolina Volunteers (Gregg’s), dated 31 March 1861, stated “the uniforms were not distributed until a few days ago.” 8. See Edgefield Advertiser (Edgefield, SC), 10 April 1861, 2: 7. James G. Gibbes purchased the Saluda Factory in 1855 and renamed it the Columbia Mill. See “Columbia Cotton Mill,” Charleston Daily Courier, 14 April 1856, 1: 4. 9. “Carolina Caps—Williams & Brown,” Charleston Daily Courier, 6 April 1861, 1: 3. 10. Porter, Led On!, 110. 11. Monthly Clothing Account, July 1861, RCG, State Archives. 12. Monthly Camp Equipage Account, July 1861, RCG, State Archives. 13. Porter, Led On!, 110. 14. “Girls Wanted,” Charleston Daily Courier, 14 August 1861, 2: 7. 15. “Headquarters, Q.M.G. Dept.,” Charleston Mercury, 26 August 1861, 2: 4. 16. “To Tailors,” Charleston Mercury, 5 September 1861, 2: 4. (see advertisement below for tailors and seamstresses for coats at corner of King and Society). 17. “Quartermaster’s Department,” Charleston Mercury, 16 September 1861, 2: 2. 18. “Trade Directory,” ibid., 27 December 1860, 4: 6–8. 19. Receipts, Ordnance Papers, Records of the Confederate Historian, South Carolina Department of Archives and History. 20. See “J. Russell Baker,” Charleston Mercury, 5 January 1861, 4: 8; and Journals of the South Carolina Executive Councils of 1861 and 1862, ed. Charles E. Cauthen (Columbia, SC: Archives Department, 1956), 225. By the end of 1861, Baker had gone to Virginia and served in the valley until toward the end of 1863 when, having been stricken with “Typhoid fever, Plurisy, and Pneumonia,” he returned to South Carolina and wrote to Secretary of the Treasury Christopher Memminger requesting a position in his department. It is not known if he succeeded in this endeavour. 21. “Soldiers’ Relief Association,” Charleston Mercury, 24 July 1861, 2: 4. Volunteer groups elsewhere in the state included the Aiken Soldiers’ Relief Association, Bluffton Soldiers’ Relief Association, and Black Oak Soldiers’ Relief Association.

Military Collector & Historian

My First Flight in an F–4 Phantom Lt. Col. John Norvell, USAF (Ret.) 22. “The Quiet Old Depository,” Charleston Mercury, 18 September 1861, 2: 1. 23. See “Eighth Weekly Report of the Soldiers’ Relief Association of Charleston,” Charleston Mercury, 18 September 1861, 2: 2, and “Soldiers’ Relief Association,” Charleston Daily Courier, 9 October 1861, 4: 1. 24. “Quartermaster’s Department,” Charleston Mercury, 16 September 1861, 2: 2. 25. Letter from S.L. Glover to Gov. Francis Pickens, 8 October 1861, www.mqamericana.com, accessed June 2017. 26. “To Rev. J. Bachman,” Charleston Daily Courier, 29 April 1862, 4: 4, citing the Daily South Carolinian. 27. Cauthen, Journals of the South Carolina Executive Councils, 231. 28. “To the Soldiers’ Aid Societies of South Carolina,” Charleston Daily Courier, 30 September 1861, 1: 2. 29. See “Obituary,” Charleston Mercury, 5 June 1862, 2: 3; and “General Order No. 22,” Charleston Daily Courier, 7 June 1862, 3: 1. Jones had been chairman of the South Carolina Ordnance Board in early 1861. He next commanded the 14th South Carolina until his resignation on 26 March 1862. On 14 April 1862, he was appointed auditor of accounts and vouchers of disbursing officers in state service. See Cauthen, Journals of the South Carolina Executive Councils, 130, 148. 30. Cauthen, Journals of the South Carolina Executive Councils, 192. The “Quarter Master stores of all bulky or heavy articles” had been ordered to be removed to Columbia “for safe keeping” on 22 February 1862. See also, 98. 31. Ibid., 231. 32. On 17 July 1861, the Charleston Daily Courier (2: 2) reported Hatch’s accounts had been “audited and examined before Colonel Wilmot G. DeSaussure, Executive Secretary for finances,” and were found to have been kept “skilfully, faithfully, and accurately.” Two days later, the Mercury reported the amounts paid out by the State Quartermaster Department amounted to $574,040, with “satisfactory vouchers, balancing exactly.” See Charleston Mercury, 19 July 1861, 1: 2. Extant records in the State Archives for the period when Hatch was QMG consist mainly of lists of monetary requisitions for February, March, April, and May 1861. 33. Report of the Chief of the Department of the Military of South Carolina to His Excellency, Governor Pickens (Columbia, SC: Charles P. Pelham, State Printer, 1862), 46, Appendix F. 34. Cauthen, Journals of the South Carolina Executive Councils, 242. 35. Vouchers, QM Dept. Records, S.C. State Archives. 36. “Quarterly Return of Clothing received and issued at Columbia, S.C.,” 30 September 1862 and 31 December 1862, RCG, State Archives. 37. “An Act to Repeal the Law Authorizing Commutation for Soldiers’ Clothing to be Furnished by the Secretary of War in Kind,” 8 October 1862, Statutes, II, 69. 38. Cauthen, Journals of the South Carolina Executive Councils, 279. 39. “Clothing,” Charleston Daily Courier, 28 October 1862, 1: 1. 40. Quarterly Return of Clothing received and issued at Columbia, S.C.,” 31 December 1862, RCG, State Archives. 41. William A. Gibson, Confederate Papers Relating to Citizens or Business Firms, compiled 1874–1899, documenting the period 1861–1865, National Archives publication M346, Record Group 109, National Archives, Washington, DC.

n fall 1972, I arrived at Luke AFB to upgrade to the backseat of the F–4. I had come to this point late in life, 28 and a captain, having been a ground pounder (non-rated or non-flying officer) for first 4 years of my career, then going to Navigator training. I had always wanted to fly jets when I was a kid so when I was selected to fly the F–4, after nav school, it was a dream come true. The F–4 Phantom II was the primary Air Force fighter of the Vietnam War. It had entered the inventory in 1960, so in 1972 it was relatively new. It was not a small fighter, it had two big GE J–79 engines that could blast it off the deck and the bird could weigh in at nearly 60,000 pounds when fully loaded with fuel at take-off. When the afterburners were cooking, the thrust was its biggest advantage, it could push you out there away from an enemy or help you engage him in combat. Training began at Luke with ground school. There I learned the aircraft systems, practiced emergency procedures, and spent about a month in training before I even got to fly “Big Ugly,” as we affectionately called the bird. As a WSO (Weapons Systems Officer) you don’t fly in an F–4 — you wear it. The cockpit was very small and so tight I could hardly move. I had on a G suit to handle increased G forces, an oxygen mask, and was tightly strapped to a rocket ejection seat. Which brings me finally back my first flight. For weeks we had practiced in the simulator to make all of the checklist procedures second nature. On 22 September 1972 the weeks of preparation and classes came together in that first flight. I remember it as if it was yesterday. We went through the preflight, started the engines, I completed aligning the INS and turned on the radar, and the Aircraft Commander (AC), who was an instructor pilot, made his call: “F–4D–010, requesting permission to taxi.” Our F–4 taxied out of its parking space and slowly moved into position. While Hollywood has accustomed Americans to think that there is a lot of banter between aircrew members, in actuality there is usually strict radio discipline. In the back seat I finished my checklists as the AC got permission to take off. I wasn’t excited or even nervous—actually I really didn’t know what to expect— just did what I was trained to do. Now on the runway, the AC pushed the throttles which had been idling in what was called “Military Power,” past the detent into afterburner, and released the brakes. The Phantom jumped off the runway. There is no other way to describe it. It was like being shot out of a cannon strapped to the shell. In the back, I called off 100 knots as we passed that speed and began to rapidly lift off. All by the book.

Journal of the Company of Military Historians

can’t explain it; it was an emotionally charged moment that drew me into a place that I had spent probably more than 1,000 hours of my life in war and peace. The problem of course was that while I was still 28 in my mind, my body was 72. So I mounted the steps and climbed down into the seat. My first reaction was that I didn’t remember it being so far down in the plane. But after gingerly lowering myself into position, I settled into a place of great familiarity to me. I truly felt that I had come home. So hard to explain, but it meant so much to me to be there. It gave me a new appreciation for the men of World War II who flew the big bombers and how they must have felt when they entered a B–17 or B–29 years later after the war. Yes it was a very special moment. I suspect that many folks have the same moment. There is a time or place in their lives that is special in a way that You Can Go Home Again they cannot begin to share with others. When they think In 2016, I spent a great day at the Air Force Museum in about or revisit the place, they are taken back. Back to a Dayton, Ohio. It was amazing to see all those aircraft— time when their lives were touched in a way no one can every version of Air Force One from President Franklin ever know. Roosevelt’s plane to the 707 aircraft that took the body Being in that cockpit again was such a moment. of John F. Kennedy from Dallas back to Washington; a B–1 bomber, the XB–70 bomber, various versions of every type of fighter, pursuit, interceptor, and bomber ever made. Yet it was an unexpected moment that really resonated with me. I was eager to get to the F–4 and was not disappointed. In the SEA Vietnam War zone, Col. Robin Olds’ F–4 appeared in an area that suggested Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base, where I had flown combat missions as a Weapons Systems Officer. I turned the corner to find an F–4 crew cockpit on display with a ladder so that you could go up and climb in and sit in the crew positions. Now I have not flown in an F–4 since 1978, when I left to teach at the Air Force Academy, but I was compelled to sit in the cockpit. Compelled is exactly the right word. I had to do this. I

Once in the training area, the AC put the big bird through its paces, I practiced with the radar, and we accomplished our training objectives. Then the AC told me, “You’ve got The Stick.” And I shook the stick, saying, “I’ve got ‘The Stick.’” Here I was a kid from a rural small town with my hands on the stick of a top-level Air Force fighter. Its hard to put into words my feelings of that moment, now fortyfive years later. It was mixture of pride, awe, excitement, and an extreme adrenaline rush that lasted well into the night (as my wife can still attest). Over my years in the Phantom I would have “The Stick” on almost every mission. I would fly combat missions in South East Asia, see sights of amazing beauty in the air, and do things in the air that most folks can not dream of. And I would be changed in many ways. Yet that first time will always be the most special.

Military Collector & Historian

2d Regiment of United States Dragoons, standard bearer, 1846

Military Collector and Historian Spring 2018 Vol 70 No. 1

Articles inside

My First Flight in an F–4 Phantom, by Lt. Col. John Norvell, USAF (Ret

Clothing the Confederate Soldiers of South Carolina, 1861–1865, by Ron Field

Capt. John S. Wilson of Danville, Pennsylvania, 1840 to 1847, by Randy W. Hackenburg

Capt. George T. Balch, U.S. Army Ordnance Department, and his 1861–1862 Letter Book, by Charles Pate

Women’s Motor Corps of America Coat, 1917–1920, by Marc W. Sammis

Francis Back, by René Chartrand

A Dragoon on Trial: The Quality of Military Justice and the Court-martial of Pvt. Percival Lowe, by Will Gorenfeld

The Message Center: From the President

966: “MarPat” (Marine Pattern) USMC Camouflaged Utility Uniform, 2002, by John M. Carrillo and Kenneth Smith-Christmas

Testing Underwater Ordnance in the Patuxent During World War II, by Merle T. Cole

MILITARY UNIFORMS IN AMERICA 965: Compagnies franches de la Marine, “Canadian Style” dress, mid-eighteenth century, by Francis Back and René Chartrand

by Peter Rindlisbacher and René Chartrand

Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery: How the U.S. Took a German Ordnance Item for its Own, by Thomas A. Crawford

The Shoulder Sleeve Insignia of the Fourth Brigade of Marines, 1918–19

The Sailmakers Detachment: Italian American Tailors in the Air Service in World War I, by Maj. Peter L. Belmonte, USAF (Ret

A 1912 Real Picture Postcard of a Sailor from USS Franklin by Anthony F. Gero

by Kenneth L. Smith-Christmas and Owen Linlithgow Conner

On Our Covers

World War I Real Photograph Postcard of U.S. Army Officers, by Alan Bogan

Shoulder Sleeve Insignia of the District of Paris, A.E.F., by Dan Joyce