Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: 1812 Re: Indian Department

Expand Messages
  • roy winders
    Hi Gerry, officers were told / ordered to wear the red tunic in battle so as not to be mistaken for a white savage, I believe they would have worn the most
    Message 1 of 34 , Apr 8, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Gerry,
      officers were told / ordered to wear the red tunic in battle so as not to be mistaken for a white savage, I believe they would
      have worn the most basic red coat as they would be fighting in the bush.
      Gold braided finery would have been reserved for negotiations etc.
      To use a modern equivalent, a ceo would'nt attend a shareholders meeting in overalls, nor would a 3 star general wear a dress uniform in a tank.
      Men such as Elliott lived in 2 worlds.
       
      Roy.
       


      ________________________________
      From: doucanu2 <doucanu2@...>
      To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 4:11:23 PM
      Subject: 1812 Re: Indian Department


       



      "petemonahan" wrote:

      > Gerry

      > Yes, there was a uniform for British officers, including various people who had temporary commissions during the War. It consists, as you note, of a green coat with red facings.

      > A reasonably good image can be found on the Cdn Forces history site "Aboriginal People in the Canadian Military Chapter Three: In Defence of their Homelands" [http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/pub/boo-bro/abo-aut/chapter-chapitre-03-eng.asp%5d about half way down the page.

      > A fascinating topic!

      > Peter Monahan

      Thanks Peter, I'm no expert on uniforms and I get confused easily as I don't do British Milt.,,, the document reads "scarlet with green facings" so is that scarlet for the main body of the coat and green at the cuffs, collar and lapels when turned out?

      When I hear green with red facings I think the oppisite, green mainbody with red facings at cuffs collar, lapels ?

      I have seen the N.D. site pic before and always wondered what primary source information it was based on? It doesn't seem to totally reflect information found in Chartrands book British Forces in North America, of a suspected B.I.D coat as worn by McKay in his portriat for Col. McDonall. No gold lace showing in the National Defence pic, with gold lace as mentioned in the document as indicating an officer. The document does mention for a blacksmith the same scarlet with green facings but no gold lace.

      There must have been many different uniforms seen and worn throughout the war, Thomas Caldwell with the Essex Militia also became a member of the Indian Department and saw action with his Fathers Western Rangers along with his brother Francis and I can't imagine Thomas having three different uniforms anytime he was called to lend a hand.Those of lesser means I'm sure had no uniform at all.

      Anyway, I was just passing on information that was written over two hundred years ago so again, anyone interested can take out of it what ever they'd like. It is an interesting subject none the less.

      Kindest Regards,

      Gerry




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Craig Williams
      Not only are tricorns not common by 1812 being worn more for ceremonial purposes by very old gents,they are, for a farmer in UC very impractical. They provide
      Message 34 of 34 , Apr 10, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Not only are tricorns not common by 1812 being worn more for ceremonial purposes by very old gents,they are, for a farmer in UC very impractical.
        They provide little or no protection from the elements and require far more upkeep than a wide brim slouch hat which was very common among farmers.

        Sent from my iPhone

        On 2013-04-10, at 12:23, annbwass@... wrote:

        >
        >
        > I am so poor that I have to wear my cloths until they rot off my back. You will not see bowler hats in 1812 but you would see tricorn's.
        > Not sure how many tricornes would still be around. Hats do wear out, and, given that a poor man likely only had one, I'm not sure what kind of shape it would be in after 20 or so years.
        >
        > Given the following observation was in the U.S., not Canada,and in 1818, but I do think the "frontier" thing can be over-stated. Morris Birkbeck, traveling from England, observed in Princeton, Indiana, "One year ago the neighborhood of this very town of Princeton, was clad in 'buckskin;' now the men appear at church in good blue cloth, and the women in fine calicoes and straw bonnets."
        >
        > Ann Wass
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Andre Reed <reedandre57@...>
        > To: WarOf1812 <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Wed, Apr 10, 2013 9:37 am
        > Subject: Re: 1812 Re: Indian Department
        >
        > So were do we go from hear do we station a uniformed guard outside the gate and turn away anyone that dose not fit the mold.
        > During the war as a Loyal British subject I would come out of the woods or off my farm to fight.
        > Unlike the British officers wearing the latest fashions, I am so poor that I have to wear my cloths until they rot off my back. You will not see bowler hats in 1812 but you would see tricorn's.
        > Leather shirts have been worn since biblical times and have lasted up to today, you can't say that about the British Red Jacket.
        > Andre
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: Craig Williams <sgtwarner@...>
        > To: "WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com" <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 7:50:02 PM
        > Subject: Re: 1812 Re: Indian Department
        >
        >
        > And yet... There are still people wearing clothing from 30 or 40 years prior to the 1812era or indeed clothing that wasn't worn by " Canadians" so in essence we do see this occasionally. The problem is not as bad as it used to be but it's still there.
        >
        > CW
        >
        > Sent from my iPhone
        >
        > On 2013-04-09, at 16:15, "doucanu2" <doucanu2@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > What I hope I never see,
        > >
        > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsz3Fpy0Jkk
        > >
        > > It's a great hobby and an extension of our passion for history but equally important for most I'm sure is the correct information being passed on to the general public who visits and most often has many questions to ask.
        > >
        > > Thanks for all the help everyone,
        > >
        > > Gerry
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.