21 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Tailor Made, Trail Worn: A Critical Review, May 28, 2003
This review is from: Lewis & Clark: Tailor Made, Trail Worn--Army Life, Clothing, & Weapons of the Corps of Discovery (Lewis & Clark Expedition) (Hardcover)
In their introduction, the author-artist team note that their book is an attempt, "based upon the best research into original materials and artifacts available at the time of its writing" in order to make a "scientific study" of the clothing worn on this monumental western journey of exploration. Using both primary manuscript and printed primary and secondary sources, as well as period iconography and original artifacts, the book covers the various facets of attire (from uniform coats to legwear and headgear) in great detail, seemingly leaving no stone unturned in their quest. The book is profusely illustrated in color and black/white, the majority of which are reproductions of watercolor or pencil drawings by artist Haynes. Haynes's artwork has both a pleasing style and the attention to detail so necesary in such illustration work (I particularly like his handling of different facial features, such as in his fine depictions of Meriwether Lewis and Sacajawea).
The sheer mass of information and imagery contained in this attractive, hardbound book would lead both casual and many specialist readers to believe that, surely, this must be the "final word" or bible on the subject. Unfortunately this is not the case, as the textual treatment of the subject contains some very serious errors and omissions, the most notable and critical being in the documentation and reconstruction of the artillery and infantry uniform coats and in the military headgear of the commissioned officers and the enlisted artillerymen (which consequently mar the reconstructions of much of the dress shown in Haynes's artwork). Author Moore is extremely well-versed in the history of the Lewis and Clark Expedition and it is readily apparent that he has worked with all of the printed (and much of the manuscript) source materials. However, when dealing with late 18th and early 19th century tailoring (especially that of military uniforms) and the evolution of the United States Army uniforms and equipage during this same period, he stands on less firm ground. It is very clear that neither author or artist has had much firsthand experience in the study of original clothing, accoutrements and related artifacts from this period and are seemingly unaware of (or at least, have never investigated) many important public and private collections in this country that contain uniforms, civilian clothing, accoutrements, iconography, weaponry and archaeological materials directly relevant to this subject and time period. Work with such artifacts would have greatly enhanced their understanding of the technology and fashions of the period, as well as providing illustration alternatives in lieu of drawings derived from photographs of original or replica objects or actual photos of "reproductions" found in the book.
However, the primary flaw in author Moore's research and documentation (and thereby many of the conjectural reconstructions of clothing and equipage in the book) is that he failed to sufficiently investigate the wealth of original manuscript source materials on uniforms and equipage found in the Old Army Records at the National Archives. To his credit, Moore examined most of the relevant orderly books found in Record Group (hereafter RG) 98, but I can find little evidence of any firsthand examination of records from RG 92 (Office of the Quartermaster General [OQM]) outside of one container (not to mention RG94 [Adjutant General], RG107 [Secretary of War] or RG156 [Ordnance]. This .5 linear foot container, Box 1169 or subject file "Uniforms", is one of many hundreds of such boxes found in Entry 225, the Consolidated Correspondence Files, OQM . It is well-known to the small cadre of serious uniformologists working on 19th century Army dress and equipage (most of whom are well-known to each other) that haunt the Archives working in such records and is the starting block for such a study, but certainly not the end-all. Moore has drawn on it and quoted from it extensively in his textual discussion of the 1803-issue military clothing of the Lewis and Clark expedition, but in fact, there are only a few documents in Box 1169 directly pertaining to the 1803 and earlier Army clothing issues. Most of the early 19th century items therein deal with the new infantry and modified artillery uniforms of 1804-5 and the subsequent uniform changes of 1808, 1810 and 1812. Yet it is from these later documents that Moore draws most of his conclusions concerning pre-1804 military dress!! A good number of the documents in the container are undated file memorandums and correspondence extracts that can only be placed in their proper context by careful examination of corresondence and specifications found elsewhere in RG92 among the bound letterbooks, ledgers and loose files of the Purveyor General, the Military Storekeeper, the Inspector of Clothing, etc., as well as the incoming and outgoing corresondence of the Secretary of War (RG 107).
Had the author taken the time to pore through such records, he would have found critical information directly relevant to the pre-1804 uniforms elsewhere at the National Archives, not to mention the Hamilton, Hodgdon and Kingsbury papers at the Library of Congress. I will give but two examples of the problematic reconstructions to be found in the book resulting from such an approach: the infantry coat worn in 1803 and the enlisted artillery hat of the same period. It is claimed that the 1803 infantry coat had false (sewn-down) lapels and turnbacks on its skirts, two small buttons closing each cuff, no shoulderstraps, and three-inch wide lapels, cuffs and cape (collar). This interpretation is largely based on a letter written by the Purveyor of Public Supplies to the Secretary of War on 9 June 1801, as well as the varied contents of box 1169 above. Although Moore quotes a short extract from this letter and cites it directly in his footnotes and bibliography, there is strong evidence to suggest that he has never seen the letter in its entirety, but instead derived his partial quote and citation (along with many other National Archives citations, less those from RG98 and the before-mentioned box 1169 from RG92) primarily from articles written by Marko Zlatich, the late Detmar Finke, and others that were previously published in the Journal of the Company of Military Historians. When read in its entirety and in context with other 1801 letters between the Secretary of War and the Purveyor of Public Supplies (many of which can be found in the same source as the 9 June 1801 letter but none of which, oddly, are mentioned or cited by Moore), it is clear that what is being described is not the 1797 infantry coat (for that is what was still being worn in 1803), but instead additional modifications recommended to be made to a pattern coat onhand with the War Department should the newer pattern remain under consideration for future adoption (the said pattern coat had been originally made in 1799 under the direction of former Inspector General and altered in 1801 to suit the tastes of the incoming Secretary of War, but it was ever adopted, as sufficient stocks of the 1797 pattern unform remained onhand to clothe the infantry through 1803). In reality, the infantry coat worn in 1803 had functional lapels and turnbacks and other features in great variance to Moore's conjectural reconstruction.
Likewise, in discussing the hats worn by the enlisted artillerymen, Moore claims that the chapeau bras was worn and cites two primary sources to justify his reconstruction. The first is an undated description of an officers' chapeau that he ascribes to circa 1810 (but is actually a undated, draft copy of the 1812 artillery uniform regulations), along with the 1812 contract specifications for enlisted chapeau bras, both from box 1169. However, it seems rather odd that Moore does not seem aware of the 1803 contract specifications for artillery enlisted hats, for they are set down directly opposite the infantry hat details he quotes and cites to Entry 376 of RG45 (the infantry specifications from entry 376 were previously published in an article by Zlatich); the artillery specifications have never been quoted in print, but were used in the reconstruction of such headgear in my book, The United States Army, 1783-1811 (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2000). In fact, the smaller cocked hats with yellow binding illustrated in this latter book remained the issue artillery headgear until 1812, when chapeau bras were finally adopted. Expensive, impractical and unpopular, the enlisted chapeau bras of 1812 were replaced with felt caps later that year and only part of 1st Artillery ever wore them.
Despite the claim that the "authors have done their very best to approach this material with open minds", recent reconstructions of United States Army dress of the period by other experienced researchers (such as those by Zlatich and this writer) that run counter to their interpretation are summarily dismissed. For example, when rejecting this writer's earlier reconstruction of the 1799 artillery uniform at variance with their own notions of such dress, they knowingly state that the "orders do not match the color drawings prepared in 1799" and "the amounts of materials and buttons...do not match with either Hamilton's written orders or the illustrations," yet neither of them have ever worked with the original Hamilton, Hodgdon, and Whelen manuscripts dealing with the development of this. Nor have they ever seen the original uniform drawings in the Hamilton Papers (outside of the two drawings published for the first time in my book above), so such claims appear both arbitrary and presumptuous. Elsewhere, it is stated that "no changes were made in its [the artillery uniform's] cut or design between 1800 and 1810, when there is extensive primary evidence for its modification in cut and trimmings in 1801 and again during 1804-1806.
Since the principal...
Read more ›
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Exhaustively researched and wonderfully illustrated, August 31, 2006
This review is from: Lewis & Clark: Tailor Made, Trail Worn--Army Life, Clothing, & Weapons of the Corps of Discovery (Lewis & Clark Expedition) (Hardcover)
One of the frustrating things about researching early America is the lack of good graphic images. Aside from stiff formal portraits of the captains, there is little that can tell you visually what it might have been like to be part of the Lewis & Clark Expedition. That's where artists come in, of course. One of the best artists who is rendering images of Lewis & Clark today is Michael Haynes.
It seems kind of funny to imagine guys running around the wilderness wearing those hats, but they really did! Tailor Made, Trail Worn is an exhaustively researched and wonderfully illustrated study of the clothing worn by the men of the Corps of Discovery. Every Lewis & Clark scholar is indebted to Moore and Haynes for this great book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
