Early1800 Army Tents
And The Decision Of 1843
By
Kyle McGonigle
Tents have been a form of shelter
as long as their have been armies. For almost
as long, tents have been the subject of complaints by soldiers as they found
themselves living “under canvas”.
In the early 1800's U.S. Army the
standard tents were the “A” shaped common tent (called a dog tent
by the rank and file), wall tent, and the hospital tent. The common tent slept 6 soldiers. Two officers below the rank of Captain shared
one wall tent. Captains and above had a
wall tent to themselves. Field grade officers had use of two wall
tents while General officers were issued either three wall tents or one wall
tent and a marquee.
Use of these cloth quarters was
not limited to excursions in the field or during war conditions. When Fort
Snelling
was being rebuilt, troops lived in tents while the old fort structures were
being torn down and the new replacements built. Tent living extended into
winter when construction had ceased. The
same was true at Fort Atkinson,
T.I. during early construction and, in all probability, at many other posts as
initial building took place.
In these more modern times,
observance of a reenactment camp reveals tents made from a number of natural
and man-made fabrics. In earlier times
cotton or hemp duck material were the choices. Responding to complaints relative to the poor
service provided by army tents a resolution of the U. S. House of
Representatives on the 3rd
of March 1842 instructed the Secretary of War to determine the
fitness of cotton as an article for tents etc.
At this time hemp duck was being used for tents and wagon covers.
On December
7, 1843 J. M. Porter of the War Department
transmitted a report of the Quartermaster General of the Army, who had been
charged with inquiry by the Department.
It read:
Sir: In obedience to your order of the 10th
of April, I have the honor to report, under a resolution of the House of
Representatives of the 3d March, requiring information as to the fitness of
cotton for tents, etc, that I took immediate measures to obtain the information
required by the order and resolution, and I now submit copies of reports
received from Colonel Stanton and Major Tomkins - one
of whom served two, and the latter three campaigns against the Southern
Indians. Their views I know, from my own
experience in the field, to be correct; and I would not, therefore, advise that
cotton be substituted for hempen cloth, either for tents or for any other
articles required for the service, in the manufacture of which hempen cloth is
now used.
I have the honor to
be, Most Respectfully, Sir Your Obedient Servant
Thomas S. Jesup, Quartermaster General
The report from Colonel Henry
Stanton, Assistant Quartermaster General which was submitted by Jesup read as follows:
Office of Clothing
and Equipage
Philadelphia,
September 14, 1843
General: Your
letter of the 11th inst., reminding me of you having transmitted to
me, on the 19th of April last, a resolution of the House of
Representatives 3d March, requiring reports in relation to the “fitness
of cotton for tents” etc, came duly to hand.
Although much time
has elapsed since the receipt of your letter referred to, the subject has not
escaped my recollection; but its final consideration has been delayed with the
view of testing, by some experiments commenced at the arsenal, the fitness of
cotton for tents, etc., compared with hempen duck for the same purposes, which,
it is hoped, would enable me to arrive at some definite conclusions in relation
to it. But as the experiments referred
to cannot be completed for some time, and as a further delay of my report might
be attended with inconvenience, I am under the necessity of making it upon
rather limited information which I have been able to obtain from less
satisfactory sources.
Having little
personal experience to guide me in forming an opinion upon the matter in
question, I early sought for the desired information from intelligent mechanics
and others, whose opportunities for practical observations entitle their
opinions to credit; from all which I have arrived at the conclusions following:
1st
That the first cost of cotton material for tents is usually about 20% less than
hempen canvass.
2nd
That cotton tents are more impervious to wind and rain than hempen, and are
consequently more comfortable in cold, windy, or wet weather.
3rd That
cotton is less durable, by at least 30%, than hempen material;
4th And
is besides, unquestionably more liable to imbibe mildew in all (but
particularly in damp) weather and situations.
5th It
absorbs more water, and is consequently heavier when wet.
6th It
is more bulky, and, if rolled or packed up in warm weather, and in a damp
state, might be greatly injured, if not ruined, in much less time than would
seriously injure hempen canvass under similar circumstances.
7th Its
contraction from damp or wet is greater than that experienced by hempen
material, and therefore more liable, (as has been found by actual experience in
Florida, where cotton was extensively used for wagon covers), if tightly
stretched when dry, to tear out the loops by which it may be confined, on
becoming suddenly wet.
Although I
entertain the hope, in commencing my investigations of this subject, of being
able to establish, the facts, the superiority of the domestic over the foreign
production for the purposes in question, I am never the less compelled to state
that in my opinion hemp is a preferable material for tents, and other military
purposes than cotton.
There are some
considerations which weigh in favor of cotton canvass for sailcloth, which are
not regarded in deciding upon its fitness for military purposes. Among which, the important
one of its being less liable to injury from chafing than hempen duck.
I transmit with
this, a letter addressed to me by Major Tomkins
giving his views as to the comparative fitness of cotton and hemp for tents,
etc.
I remain, General, Most Respectfully,
Your Obedient Servant
Henry Stanton,
Assistant quartermaster General
Major Tomkins
wrote as follows:
Assistant
Quartermaster Office
Philadelphia,
May 5, 1843
Sir: Your letter, dated Office of Clothing and Equipments, Philadelphia
May 3, 1843, asking my
experience and opinion in regard to the use of hempen duck and cotton canvass
for military purposes; as respects their value, I have received. From two years experience in the
Quartermaster Department in Florida, where I used both hempen duck and cotton
canvass for wagon covers, I found that the former was less liable to mildew,
and would last nearly as long again as the later, with equal exposures; for two
reasons: 1st, When wet, it does not fill up and become stiff, as
cotton does; it will pack in this state in a less compass; 2nd, When
wet it will not weigh as much to the square yard (of equal thickness) as cotton
canvass, which is a matter of importance as regards transportation. Another objection occurs to me against the
use of cotton canvass for tents. Should
a tent be pitched when the cloth is dry, the pins driven in firm ground, and a
rain fall upon it, it would, in my opinion, fill up so as either to draw the
pins or break the loops which pass over the pins when up. This occurring in the night, would
cause
great inconvenience as well as discomfort to the soldier. From the above, I would give hempen duck the
preference for all field purposes.
I am Sir, Very
Respectfully, Your Obedient Servant
D.D. Tompkins
Major
and Assistant Quartermaster.
With this body of enlightened
opinion the die was cast. Army tents
were to be made exclusively of hempen duck as were wagon covers. Henry
Stanton’s opinion “That the first cost of cotton material for tents
is usually about 20% less than hempen canvass.” and “that cotton tents are more
impervious to wind and rain than hempen, and are consequently more comfortable
in cold, windy, or wet weather.” seemed to be of lesser important than
the other more practical considerations of the Quartermaster General such as
the weight when wet, likeliness to mildew, and shrinkage when dry.
Less than two years later, during
the Mexican War, field-hardened regulars found problems with their tents in the
summer of 1845 while assembled at Corpus Christi.
Lt. Daniel Harvey Hill of the 4th
Artillery stated in an article published anonymously that “Two-thirds of
the tents furnished the army on taking the field were worn out and rotten, and
had been condemned by boards of survey appointed by the proper authorities in
accordance with the provisions of the army regulation on that subject. Transparent as gauze, they afforded little or
no protection against the intense heat of summer, or the drenching rains and
severe cold of winter. Even the dews
penetrated the thin covering almost without obstruction. Such were the tents, provided for campaigning
in a country almost deluged three months in the year, and more variable in its
climate than any other region in the world ...the rains were pouring down with
violence, or the furious “northers” were
shivering the frail tent poles, and rending the rotten canvass [sic]. For days and weeks, every article in hundreds
of tents was thoroughly soaked.”
This, of course, had its effects on both moral and general health.
In the mid-1800's
the tentage and polls were carried in wagons. Each company had use of one wagon. When an army was on the march it was not
uncommon for the troops to arrive at a camp site before the wagon train. In such cases if the soldiers were fortunate,
by the time they had cleared and prepared the camp site the wagons would have
arrived with their tentage. If fortune didn’t smile, not only would
they be without shelter but without cooking gear and other company property.
Regardless of their
functionality, army tents were set up in a very orderly manner as spelled out
in General Regulations. A myriad of
writers have commented on the precision found in the arrangement of Army camps. The encampments of “regulars” were described
as “neat” and “orderly”. One young officer experiencing his first
large encampment wrote “If one knows the rank, regiment and company of an individual it is
possible to walk directly to his tent no matter the size of camp.”
Although similar in appearance,
during this early period there was no standardization set for Army tentage.
Standardization didn’t occur until 1865 when regulations set
measurements for all tents. For example,
the wall tent of the Civil War was to be 8 foot 6 inches in height, 9 feet in
length, and 9 feet in height. The wall
height was to be 3 feet 9 inches, the door height 7 feet and the wall eves 2
feet. Fly measurements were set as a
length of 15 feet 6 inches and a width of 9 feet. By contrast, during the Mexican War, Samuel
R. Curtis when describing the tent of his friend Major John L. Gardner of the 4th
Regiment of Artillery wrote, “he is lounging on his cot. His tent is a common wall tent 12 feet
square.” (Also mentioned were a
trunk, box, and camp stove.)
Generally, paintings and the few
photographs which exist show these early wall tents with highter
peaks than those of the Civil War. The
common tent of this period was also slightly taller, longer, and wider than its
later counterpart.
With the wisdom of 20/20 hindsight,
the decision made in 1843 to use hempen duck may not have been wise when health
and morale are taken into consideration. Both of these factors were of
particular import during the Mexican War.
Colonel Samuel R. Curtis writing
from Matamoros
recorded “In my regiment there are 150 on the sick list. The same proportion at Camp
Washington ...” Analyzing the causes of illness among
the troops, Surgeon Charles S. Tripler stated, in part, “The quarters
occupied by our troops are for the most part open to the weather...”
It would seem there was some
justification for complaint while living “under canvas”.
The material on this page and my
other pages are under ownership of its respective writers. All Rights Reserved.
