"AWI Hunting Shirt Question" Topic

Were hunting shirts used in any or many of the regiments in Washington's main army during the 1777-78 campaigns around Philadelphia?</p><p>My sense is that hunting shirts were found mostly along the frontier and "over the mountain" bands of fighters, or in the southern army, where there were not enough financial resources to supply the men with uniform uniforms. Also in Gates army at Saratoga?</p><p>Am I wrong or am I right? Opinions and help requested to figure this out.

Please note that everything I am about to say has been contradicted by "experts" on TMP.

I recall reading that SOME companies in the early parts of the War had uniform colored hunting shirts. One would be justified in having a regiment with "close to identical" company stands, or in your case, "bunches of figures".

I have also read that Washington liked the look of the hunting short as a uniquely American uniform, and encouraged the Colonels to strice for some uniformity in later stages of the war.

And, then there is the Osprey plate showing the LI at Yorktown with uniformly colored whiote hunting hirts about to assault the redoubt.

My usual caveat here is that although I may be wrong, I am not about to discharge any of my long standing "incorrectly painted" regiments. Thjey have fought too well and often to disrespect them that way.

I read that Washington had hunting shirts issued to many regiments in the main army to be used as a fatigue uniform. Forgive me as I can recall which issue(s) or the name of the article, but I do recall it was in the Company of Military Historians Journal.

I mix my Perry continentals in hunting shirts throughout my army, in all shades of browns and there are even a few off whites, I have the book "Uniforms of the American revolution" and one of the plates shows a Maryland unit in a hunting shirt that is almost a light purple with red cuffs, I'm thinking it was a homespun hunting shirt.

I think hunting shirts were widely used throughout the war. Some were dyed in uniform colors -- more likely in company strength than regimental -- and others just various natural shades. Used as fatigue wear, but also as "I don't have anything else to keep warm in."

Fritz,

I am a reenactor who has spent the better part of 20 years researching American uniforms of the revolution. I am no expert by any means but I do have primary source documentation.
In a nutshell, here is what I know…

Hunting shirts were very common up until the French Lottery coats arrived in the spring of 1778. Deserter descriptions and prisoner reports confirm this. The purple hunting shirt referenced above from Maryland is legit. I can't remember if it was a uniform issue, a deserter description or a prisoner description but it is documented for the Maryland line (prior to 1778).

After the Spring of 1778, the Americans were actually uniformed in Blue and Brown coats, both with red facings. However, these coats did not last very long. By 1779, the army was once again in a rag-tag appearance. At this time, hunting shirts once again became popular. Many quartermaster reports note them being issued.

Washington at first really wanted the army uniformed and out of the hunting shirts. However, he learned that the British feared men in hunting shirts, as they assumed that those Americans clad in hunting shirts were all riflemen!

So Washington no longer discouraged the wearing of the shirts.
Up to late 1777, the Virginians were almost all wearing hunting shirts. After that, they were mostly clad in blue faced red coats. Many deserter and prisoner descriptions of Pennsylvania troops have soldiers in yellow hunting shirts.
If you need primary sourcing, let me know and I can get you a few titles.

In the 1779 uniform order, Washington ordered the riflemen to be clad in white hunting shirts. However, I have never seen any quartermaster reports showing that they were actually issued. Morgan's Riflemen were described as being in the 1779 order color at the Battle of Cowpens.

As I paint my AWI troops, I tend to do the majority of the figs in a regiment in their primary documented uniforms. Then I mix in anywhere from 10%-40% misc. uniform colors (including some hunting shirts). In the case of the regiments who were actually issued hunting shirts, I use the primary issue color and then mix in a few other colors.

So the short answer is that up until the lottery coats arrived in the spring of 1778, hunting shirts were the main uniform of the army. Many colors were used… but it is logical to assume that the colors would have been subdued hues (no brights)… Also, fabric faded quickly in the 18th century. Reds quickly became pink… brown became off-white or yello or orange, and so on. This too is well documented, even in the British army.

Sorry for the long winded response but you have touched on my passion!!! Hope this helps!

To answer DAF's original question, I would say "yes" to 1777 and "possibly" to 1778 – difficult to know for sure on the latter because the only battle, Monmouth Courthouse, was fought on a blisteringly hot day and the entire Continental Army was in shirtsleeves.

<<I recall reading that SOME companies in the early parts of the War had uniform colored hunting shirts. One would be justified in having a regiment with "close to identical" company stands, or in your case, "bunches of figures".>>

In the middle and southern states, individual companies did indeed have their own colours. When existing militia units were combined to form provisional, and later Continental, regiments, this obviously became problematic and from about mid-1776 (slightly earlier in some instances – eg Smallwood's) colours were co-ordinated at regimental level.

Officially, hunting shirts were supposed to cover the uniform coat when undertaking activities other than parades (and presumably also battle). Throughout the war, hunting shirts were supposed to be worn in the field by units that had been given undyed captured British coats, to avoid confusion or causing panic.

Some types of linen used for the shirts were difficult to dye and only blue seems to have "taken" at all well, but even this faded (which was most likely the origin of the purple shirts, as actual purple dye was very expensive). Black was another colour used, but black dyes were also problematic in the 18th Century, often fading to a dusty brown if the dyeing process was not repeated several times, making it an expensive colour to create properly (and hence often reserved for the rich and the clergy).

I seem to recall reading another re-enactor on here saying that in many years of research he had actually never come across a record of brown hunting shirts (I must say that this struck me as odd, since "earth" dyes were plentiful and were commonly used on captured British coats).

I can't claim to have undertaken the depth of research of the previous poster, but Katcher's book "Uniforms of the Continental Army" makes the point that there are almost no records of hunting shirts being listed in clothing issues/inventories and deserter descriptions after 1778/79. The rise in linen prices during the war – not least because of the increased demand in N America – and the more regular availability of coats from France, seems to have killed them off within the Continental Army.

The bottom line is the US army wore anything and everything most of the time. So put your troops in whatever you want. To try to work out what they actually wore is the road to madness as even in the same Regiment you could have several patterns of uniform, if they had uniforms!

Me? I mix perry continentals in full dress in with the un-uniformed souther continentals and guys in hunting shirts, so all my units have a mix of around 50% in regulation kit (sort of, many trousers I painted in differing colours), and the other 50% are in hunting shirts or un-uniformed.

Cheers

Jaz
6sided.net – Blogger For Wargamers!

Bear in mind that, even in the midst of the jumble/yard sale scrum that was the annual clothing hand-out, there was an underlying aim of as much uniformity as possible. Men within a given company would tend to be dressed more or less alike, according to resources. What you would tend to get is this:-

1) Most officers would have their own uniforms made to the official pattern for their regiment (bear in mind that the official uniform might not be the same throughout the war, as units merged/disbanded/changed colonel); the poorer ones would try to match as closely as possible from their own civilian wardrobe.

2) NCOs tended to be first in line for any complete uniform that arrived – as a perk of the job. Starting with the senior sergeants and going down to the corporals.

3) Among the privates, you would have whatever clothing turned up distributed in such a way as to make each company look roughly similar – hence some units had more than one official uniform at any time (the famous "light blue" NH regiment in Mollo, from the Saratoga campaign actually had THREE uniforms on the go at that time, each worn by two or three of its eight companies). If the clothing turned up early in the year – as it was supposed to – then pretty much everyone got something, as the unit would have only just started recruiting for the year, and would comprise the handful of "die-hards" who had survived the winter. Obviously early on in the war there were units composed of several existing militia units, some or all of whom might be wearing their pre-war uniforms, who could be a colourful unit.

4) Where a mix of coats and hunting shirts arrived, but not enough to give everyone both (as was supposed to happen), these were generally issued in such a way that a given company all (or mostly) wore one or the other.

5) During the campaign season (usually April to October), most Continental units would have a larger or smaller smattering of men in civilian clothes who were recently-arrived recruits. Because the armies tended to be on the move during the summer and early autumn, they often did not receive any uniform issue until after the campaign season (October/November).

6) Whilst the "rag-tag" image was genuine in many cases, do be aware that there is a surprising number of Continental units for whom we do have details – via journals, diaries, government records etc – not just of what they were supposed to be wearing, but what they in fact did wear. Also, whilst coats/hunting shirts tend to be the identifying factor on the wargames table, don't forget that many units did not receive these, but did get other items such as waistcoats, breeches, or socks – so a unit could be wearing civilian coats or jackets of many colours and styles, but have (for example) red or blue small clothes, or the same colour socks.

Finally, hats: cocked, half-cocked, uncocked, slouch, floppy, whatever. White was occasionally found in the South, but inventories of hat-makers' stocks show that hats worn by civilians were overwhelmingly black felt (known as "beaver"). Other colours were found in civilian life, mainly grey or brown, but such hats were generally of better quality material – to take the dye – and hence were expensive. Those bought specifically for the Continental Army were invariably black.

As I recall from being an AWI reenactor Washington thought the hunting shirt a fine uniform and recommended it to the Congress as it was "warm in the winter and cool in the summer" George got it wrong. Having worn one in both the hot and the cold I can tell you it is the other way round. If I can find it, I had/have a card done by Imrie Risley of the various colors of hunting shirts associated with various regiments. Colors were in reds, blues, greens, browns, natural linen, black (one regiment only as the color was obtained from oyster shells) and purple (4th Maryland Independent Co. Purple with red collar and cuffs or red capes). The 6th Va. in 1776 ordered its men, officers included into hunting shirts. No color is specified in the order, but when Lafayette joined Washington he noted that the men wore hunting shirts of gray linen. Hall's Delaware, after Camden, were issued with hunting shirts and blue ticking overalls. The Pennsylvania Rifle seem to have worn the hunting shirt exclusively.
If you want to be authentic, your troops, regardless of the period of the Revolution, will be ragged and dressed in anything from "regimentals" to civilian garb. Hunting shirts should always show up in any regiment. If you are near a major university I recommend you check their policy on loaning books to non-students. I would then look for Mollo, Lefferts and the Company of Military Historians books and plates.

Buy the Osprey!

Supercilius is correct in his anaology of the hunting shirt. Linen got awefully expensive and shirts were made of all kinds of materials. Yes there were brown shirts. Yes, they did dye captured British coats brown (early war). Washington liked the hunting shirt because it was all he could get! He wanted the army uniformed…

Osprey book is good. Phillip Katcher book is great! Company of MIlitary Historians book (and journals) are fantastic. Mollo book is old and the plates are not accurate. Mollo based the majority of the book on uniform ORDERS, which were quite different than what the troops ACTUALLY got. This is true of SOME of the Osprey plates as well. Katcher's book has many deserter and prisoner descriptions, as well as newspaper descriptions. MANY Pennsylvania troops prior to 1778 had "yellow" hunting shirts. But basically, any earth tone will do. Again, I recommend that you use the Katcher book and use the ACTUAL descriptions for 50%-60% of the uniforms in the regiment. Then add in a hodge-podge of different garb, including civilian. This will help you identify units better at a glance…

If you want some pics of some accurately garbed troops from September, 1777, drop me an email @ histdean@hotmail.com and I can shoot you as many as you want! I have the entire OOB from Brandywine painted in 15mm (just over 3,000 figures). All were researched for that specific time period and my research was pretty exhaustive! No sence in anyone doing it again!! It took me 20 years… :)

My impression is that clothing choices varied from colony to colony. In New England, at least during the early war period, if the men were not given uniform coats, they wore civilian clothing. In Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia (among other colonies) hunting shirts were popular substitutions for uniform coats. Like others have said, colors varied. Brown, certainly, was one of the colors used. Samuel Houston, of Virginia's Rockbridge Rifles wrote:

"The men generally wore hunting shirts of heavy tow linen; died brown with bark; they were open in front and made to extend down near to the knee and belted around the waist with dressed skin or woven girths. The sleeves were large, with a wrist band round the wrist and fringed over the upper part of the hand as far as the knuckles. Under the hunting shirt was a jacket made of some finer materials, and breeches of dressed buck or deer skin to just below the knees, with long stockings and moccasins of deer leather…"

I agree with what's above and from my own reading, yes, some units appear to have had uniform hunting shirts. I believe there was a PA rifle unit that had black shirts, the purple one referenced above is famous and there may have been others. Can't say that it was regiment strength, though, but there is certainly evidence for "units" however you choose to interpret that.

The purple hunting shirt was most likely limited to the 4th company of the 4th Maryland. The captain of the company bought them for his men. 4th Maryland had, at that time 7 companies of 100 men each, officers included. I recommend taking a look at Don Troiani's painting of Washington reviewing his troops. The regiment passing in review is a brown coated unit. The officer and sergeant of the unit are in "regimentals" while the common soldiers are dressed in older uniforms, hunting shirts and civilian dress.

One of the more interesting letters I recall was from a "soldier" in front of Boston. He complained at the lack of women with the army as there was no one to sew or cook and their clothing was in tatters. It makes me wonder just how much wear and tear every day clothing could take since this man had only been there a month or so.

But feel free to paint them up to please your eye. Some regiments may be in nearly complete uniforms, others rag tag, some a combination of both. Rag tag does take longer to paint though. I confess to having painted my Scruby 9mm all in uniform whether they were in regimentals or hunting shirts.

<<One of the more interesting letters I recall was from a "soldier" in front of Boston. He complained at the lack of women with the army as there was no one to sew or cook and their clothing was in tatters. It makes me wonder just how much wear and tear every day clothing could take since this man had only been there a month or so.>>

There were numerous orders issued to the troops to stop them wearing their regimental coats on fatigue duty/working parties – often done to protect their own clothes – or to have the NCOs ensure they wore their hunting shirts over the top of them. The problem wasn't just wear and tear of military duties, but the lack of alternative clothing to allow the main stuff to be washed and mended, and the poor standards of workmanship in the first place. Also, the men around Boston had mainly turned up in working clothes which would have been old/worn to start with.

From one of my articles/books
Hunting Frock units
Continental
Grayson's Rgt
Rawlings
1st Rgt (Hand's)

McClellan Conn State
Phelp's Conn State
Jackson Legion Foot-Ga
Ga Bde
Georgia Vol
Ga Arty Co EMs
3rd NC rgt '76-79
All NC State Rgts in '78
NC State Militia
SC 5th Rifle
SC 6th Rifle
In VA many unit wore them
Pickett's Co 75-76 F=Olive
Taliaferro Co 75-76 F=Md Blu
1st Rgt ‘75 F
2nd Rgt 75-76 F=Purple
4th Rgt 75-78 F=
5th Rgt 75-78 F=Purple
6th Rgt 75-76 F=Dk Gry
7th Rgt 75-76 F=Black
8th Rgt ‘75 F=
9th Rgt ‘75 F=
11th Rgt 75-76 F=White
Illinois Rgt White

Maryland
Maxwell's Co ‘76 F=Brown
Creager's Co ‘76 F=White
Washington Cty ‘76 F=Black
Mose's Rifles ‘76 F=Green
3rd Co ‘76 F=Black
4th Co-Hindman ‘76 F=Purple
1st Rgt -Smallwood ‘76 F=diff co
2nd Militia ‘76 Lgt Blue
4th Militia ‘76 F=Tan
Marines ‘76 F=Blue
3rd & 4th Rgt 78-80
PENN
Wyoming Co ‘76 F=White
Cumberland Cty ‘76 F=Lgt Gry
York Cty ‘76 F=White
Buck Rifles ‘76 F=Yellow
Lancaster Rifles‘76 F=Green
McClure's Co ‘76 F=Black
Oldenbruck's Co ‘76 F=Dark ?
Price's Co ‘76 F=White
Faun's Co ‘76 F=Blue
7th Phila Bn ‘77 F=Dark
Reynard's Co ‘77 F=Dark
Pine's Co ‘77 F=White
Rhode island
1st-Varnum ‘75 F=Grn
1st State Rgt ‘76 F=Blue
Babcocks 2nd Co ‘76 F=Claret
7th Company ‘76 F=Purple
1st State Rgt ‘77 F=White
State Lgt Co ‘77 F=White

SM, I recall a deserter report in Lefferts that stated the man was wearing a hunting shirt over a regimental over a jacket over a linen shirt, apparently a walking chest of drawers. I can understand issuing an order to keep the regimentals crisp and nice, but I imagine it was honored more in the breach than the action. Late in the war Lefferts records very few hunting shirts among deserters except in the South. Most of the later reports are for civilian or regimental clothing, more civilian than regimental.

I just glanced at a copy of Lefferts and it was so wrong on British Marines I quickly put it back on the table. I have no idea if the rest of his stuff is that wrong or not.

Good going, historygamer. Glance at a book, find one error and entirely discount the rest. Lefferts spent years studying uniforms of the war. Perhaps you are the one that is wrong.

MIkhail,

No, he spent years studying AMERICAN uniforms from the war; he assumed the British followed the 1768 Clothing Warrant to the letter and never went into first person accounts for them or the Germans to see what they actually wore in the field, to anything like the extent he did for the militia and Continentals. His Loyalist info is also weak – he has the Queen's Rangers in a uniform he saw in a Canadian museum, unfortunately it was from a unit of the same name in the 1790s-1800s. That said, his American stuff was very good – and indeed groundbreaking at the time: he was first to pick up a lot of the deserter descriptions that Katcher uses, for example.

(Historygamer is a very experienced historian/re-enactor, by the way.)

SM, note we weren't discussing Brit uniforms. To dismiss an entire book because you find it is wrong, or you believe it to be wrong, on something not being discussed, well…

Having perused my copy of Lefferts I find no plate or description of the Marine uniform. The only mention made is that they provided 2 Regiments and were dispersed in company formations. Please provide me with the page number of the incorrect information on them. If you can.