kingofthescene

[kingofthescene]

The Basics Of American Revolutionary War Uniforms:

Basic descriptions I wrote of each layer of a Continental Army soldier's uniform in order of what you'd put on first to what you'd put on last, starting with:

Shirts:

In the 18th century, a man with a shirt was considered naked, so the shirt was a part of every outfit (although it was often covered in other layers of clothing). The shirts worn by the soldiers in the revolution were designed to be as comfortable as humanly possible, so they were very long, often stopping mid-thigh or just below the knee, loose and flowy, and had lots of ruffles at the top. Shirts also had long, puffy sleeves. The shirts were so comfortable that they would function as nightgowns too. All a man had to do to get ready for bed was take off all of the other layers of his uniform. The shirts were plain white or a yellowish colour, depending on how many times they'd been worn. Collars were high but not as high as collars in the 1790s, and sleeve cuffs were either closed by cuff links (little button things) or they'd just have cute lace at the end. Contrary to some ridiculous but funny assumptions I've heard from people who don't study historical fashion, shirts were not hard to put on, and they were simply pulled over the wearer's head like you would put on any other shirt. Shirts were closed together using buttons (a favourite of mine), linen, thread ties, or different combinations of the forementioned. Buttons tended to be small and made out of either thread, horn, leather, or even leather. Because the shirts were made out of soft, thin materials such as linen, cotton, and light flannel and were worn all the time, they were usually the first clothing items to wear out and break. Due to supply problems, there were periods of time during the revolution where men had to wear their breaking shirts and couldn't replace them.

Neck accessories (for lack of a better term):

Like I briefly mentioned with the shirts, people in the 18th century had a really weird idea of what counts as naked, and they believed that a man without any kind of neck covering over his shirt was still naked. Cravats and neck stocks were two commonly worn neck garments during the revolution. Cravats were made out of silk, linen, or cotton and could be put on in a range of different ways. When they were untied, they were simply long strips of fabric. There are many ways to tie a cravat. I'm not very good at explaining things, so if you need to figure out how to tie an 18th-century cravat, I recommend looking up a YouTube tutorial. Cravats could also be accessorised with cute brooches and such. There were two different, commonly worn in the continental army, types of neckstock in the 18th century. Number 1 was made of the same materials and had the same colour as a cravat, but number 2 was dark in colour and made of leather. The biggest difference between neckstocks and cravats is how you put them on. Neckstocks aren't meant to be tied like cravats; they have a buckle on one end, so they're meant to be put on more like a belt. Oh, and in case you're wondering, the buckle always goes at the back.

Stockings:

Oh my god, I could talk about revolutionary war stockings forever. They're actually so adorable and cutesy, and I just love them. So the stockings are the pretty little white tights that the 18th century seems to be known for, and they were mainly made via knitting and were made out of either wool, cotton, linen, silk, or a fabric blend of any of the aforementioned. Stockings were usually made using knitting machines, but there were still plenty of people who made them by hand. Stockings in the 18th century were not at all short either; they went above the knee (so basically thigh highs). One of my favourite parts about 18th-century stockings is the garters that secure them into place. The garters were belt things that would wrap around their legs to make sure the stockings wouldn't fall down, and they were usually made out of leather, cloth, lace, or a ribbon tied into a bow. I physically cannot speak of these things without saying aww in my mind.

Culottes:

Also known as knee-breeches, but lets be honest, culottes sound cooler. The culottes worn by 18th-century soldiers were a bit different; instead of having a line of visible buttons at the crotch area to put the culottes on like jeans, they had fewer buttons—usually about 1 or 2—at the top of the culottes, and those buttons would be hidden by the waistcoat. Culottes in the Revolutionary War had a much higher waistband; most culottes in the 18th century had a low waistband, but culottes of the Continental Army had a waistband that went just above the soldiers actual waist. And culottes never stopped lower than the shinbone (to show off the stockings). Culottes were white or off white and were made of either buckskin, elk, sheepskin, wool, linen, velvet, silk, or fabric blends of any of the aforementioned. Culottes were very tight because they were worn so that when the soldiers were riding their horses, which they did a lot, the horse needed to feel every movement of the leg so that it could understand what the rider wanted it to do, and that was much harder if the rider was wearing super loose, flowy pants. Culottes were closed at the side of the knee with more small buttons or ties. Buttons on culottes were usually made of either metal, leather, or horn and covered in cloth or wrapped in thread.

Waistcoats: 

Although waistcoats with sleeves did exist in the 18th century, they weren't as popular as waistcoats without sleeves. Going back to the weird 18th century undestanding of what is nude, a man wearing breeches, a shirt, a cravat or neckstock, and an unsleeved waistcoat would still be counted as naked. This is one of the things I see a lot of period dramas get wrong. I understand the overcoat-less look looks cool and attractive, but in the 18th century, that would be like a man going outside wearing no clothes. Oh, and another thing that a lot of period dramas mess up on is that men did not show their shirt sleeves in public; that was considered crude and abnormal; it wasn't illegal, just something you'd get judged for. There were two sub-types of waistcoats: double-breasted and single-breasted. These sub-types actually have nothing to do with breasts at all. In fact, the sub-types are about buttons. Double-breasted means a waistcoat with two rows of buttons, and single-breasted means a waistcoat with one row of buttons. Back to the uniform of the continental army, at the start of the revolution, soldiers wore single-breasted waistcoats in the most popular style of the 1750s and 1760s, but by the end of the revolution, they'd switched to wearing the 1770s style waistcoat, just going by a general pattern I've seen in changes to parts of the uniform. I'm assuming that the switch would have happened in 1779. In case you're wondering, the difference between the 1750s–1760s style and the 1770s style is their length; the former stopped mid-thigh, the latter stopped just below the hip. Waistcoats were usually made of linen, wool, velvet, silk, or a fabric blend of any of the aforementioned. They were made with all different colours and patterns, but in the continental army, they wore beige and off-white waistcoats. The waistcoat buttons were made of horn, metal, or leather and were sometimes wrapped in thread or fabric to make them the same colour as the waistcoat.

Sashes:

Sashes are a detail of the continental army uniform that I see a lot of people (and sites explaining the layers of the uniform) skip over. Continental army sashes were very important because they showed the wearer's position in the army. Green means the wearer is an aide-de-camp or brigade major; pink means the wearer is a brigadier general or a major general; and finally, blue means the wearer is a commander-in-chief. This system was made by Washington in 1775 and was used by the army throughout the war. The sashes were likely made using silk or wool. There was another, separate system with sashes; colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, captains, sub-alterns, serjeants, and corporals could wear a red sash around their waist. However, this system was likely an optional thing because I've seen many portraits of men in those ranks from 1775–1779—they ditched the system in 1779—and I've seen only one of them where the person is wearing one of the red waist sashes.

Overcoats:

At this point, you are no longer considered naked; congratulations. So there were two kinds of overcoats in the 18th century: frock coats and dress coats. Dress coats were for super-rich people, and frock coats were for everyone else. Dress coats didn't have functional pockets, and the only reason why people thought that they were better than a frock coat was that they were expensive and sometimes prettier. Frock coats had a double-breasted front (same definition as with the waistcoats), functional pockets, and a high, round neckline. You can probably guess what kind of coat the soldiers of the Continental Army wore. They wore blue wool and linen frock coats with large gold or silver metal buttons on the cuffs and facings. George Washington and his officers wore buff-coloured facings with thick buff-coloured cuffs, and most other officers wore red facings with red cuffs. The coats had coattails and stopped midthigh, but the whole button and facing thing stopped just below the hip. The overcoats had this interesting triangle coat tail design thing at the back that I tried to figure out how to describe, but I couldn't. Here's a picture of what I mean by the two different kinds of frock coats worn by the soldiers that I mentioned in this paragraph: the one on the left is the one worn by Washington and his officers, and the one on the right is the other one:

[image credit, Samson Historical and Common Threads: Army]

Epaulettes:

The epaulettes serve the same purpose as the sashes: to declare the wearers rank; however, epaulettes are much more confusing because the epaulette system changed halfway through the war. So, the epaulette system for 1776–1779 goes like this: commanders, major-generals, brigadier generals, colonels, lieutenant-colonels, and majors wore a gold epaulette on each shoulder; captains wore a single gold epaulette on their right shoulder; sub-alterns wore a single gold epaulette on their left shoulder; serjeants wore a red epaulette made of cloth on their right shoulder; and corporals wore a green epaulette made of cloth on their left shoulder. The system from 1779-1784 goes like this, commanders wore a gold epaulette on each shoulder with 3 silver stars, major-generals wore a gold epaulette on each shoulder with 2 silver stars, brigadier-generals wore a gold epaulette on each shoulder with 1 silver star, colonels, lieutenant colonels and majors wore a gold epaulette with no stars on each shoulder, captains wore a gold epaulette on their right shoulder, sub-alterns wore an epaulette on their left shoulder, senior non-commisioned officers wore a red epaulette made of cloth and adorned with a crescent moon shape made of brass on each shoulder, sergeants wore a red epaulette made of cloth on the right shoulder, corporals wore a green epaulette made of cloth on their right shoulder and lastly, privates wore no epaulettes.

Hats:

Tricorn, bicorn and round were a must. Round hats were hats that were cocked on one side, bicorn hats were hats that were cocked on two sides and tricorn hats were hats that were cocked on three sides. Most of the time Continental army soldiers pinned them and folded them on the sides. Soldiers carrying muskets wore the hat in a different way to normal civillians, civillians would have the hat the normal way, center point forward but when carrying a musket over their shoulder, soldiers would turn their hat so that the left part was facing forward. In this position, the two sides of the hat would be almost flat so they could sling their muskets over their shoulders without having to worry about knocking their hat off. The hats white edges were made using worsted wool braid and the hat itself if expensive was made of beaver felt or camel's down painted black and if it was cheap it was just made of black wool felt. Hats were not always worn, I'd say they were more of a formality because I have seen very few portraits of soldiers wearing them.

Hat Cockades:

Hat cockades were made of ribbon or wool and were a sort of decoration to be pinned to the wearer's hat. They were like sashes and epaulettes; they indicated the wearer's rank in the continental army. And the system changed in 1779. So the system before 1779 worked like this: subalterns wore a green hat cockade, captains wore a yellow hat cockade, majors and brigade majors wore a red hat cockade, colonels wore a pink hat cockade, and lieutenant colonels wore a green hat cockade. In 1779, they changed it to honour and celebrate America's military alliance with France, so the colourful insignia were removed, and instead every soldier, regardless of rank, wore a plain black and white hat cockade. French soldiers had a cockade with black in the middle, surrounded by white, and American soldiers had a cockade with white in the middle, surrounded by black. Later on, in 1783, the black and white cockades were named the union cockades and were to be worn on the left breast, close to the heart.

Shoes:

There were actually a few periods of time during the war where some of the soldiers didn't have shoes, such as during the Christmas Day crossing and the winter of 1777–1778. But when they were supplied with shoes (most of the time they were), they wore one of two styles. The classic 'little lad' shoes, as I call them, and riding boots 'Little lad' shoes were shoes made with black leather and secured with a buckle. Little lad shoes had a small heel bit at the bottom, likely meant to make the wearer look taller because, despite tall people being considered the most attractive, most people in the 18th century were very short. Riding boots had an even higher heel and a part at the top of the boots that could be rolled down to fit the wearer. When rolled down, they just look like normal riding boots but with brown cuffs at the top. Interesting shoe-related fact that I thought would be cool to put here: in the 18th century, they didn't make right or left shoes; they made what they called straights, and you were meant to switch which foot you wore them on every day to 'wear them off evenly'. Riding boots were made with leather and were black on the outside and brown on the inside. Riding boots were very tall (they went under soldiers' kneecaps) and worn for the same reason as culottes, to make horse riding easier. It's meant to prevent saddle pinching, have a sturdy toe to protect feet while on the ground, and have a big heel to prevent slipping through stirrups.

Hair:

Originally I planned on not mentioning it on this list because it's not something that you can wear but there were uniform rules about hair in the continental army so I guess it is technically part of the uniform. In the 18th century they viewed men with facial hair was considered wrong and unusual in normal day-to-day life so if course it wasn't acceptable in a military setting. In the continental army they had a rule that men needed to shave every three days. They went against this rule a few times but only when they were desperate. Now on the topic of hair as in, not facial hair, the hair on their head was usually tied into a low ponytail with a blue ribbon or simply cut short. Wigs and hair powder were fashionable in the 18th century but not many men could afford wigs and it's not like they had a ridiculous supply of hair powder so most of the time they had their natural hair colour showing.

It's important to note that this is just the standard uniform that most men wore; each regiment had its own unique uniform, so if your project has anything to do with a specific regiment, either do your own research or ask me about it in the comments or my asks. This is also post-1775 because 1775 had no uniform. If I have gotten anything wrong, please do not feel afraid to correct me in the comments, and I'll edit the post.

Sources:

https://historyofmassachusetts.org/uniforms-revolutionary-war-soldiers/

https://www.srcalifornia.com/flags/revuniforms1.htm

https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/uniforms-of-the-american-revolution

https://ufpro.com/blog/american-revolutionary-war-study-military-uniforms-across-battlefield

https://www.washingtoncrossingpark.org/continental-army-clothing/#:~:text=Over%20their%20shirts%2C%20soldiers%20would,unit%20a%20soldier%20belonged%20to.

https://www.crazycrow.com/site/tricorn-hat-history/

https://www.si.edu/object/george-washingtons-uniform%3Anmah_434863#:~:text=This%20blue%20wool%20coat%20is,buff%20wool%2C%20with%20gilt%20buttons.

http://www.colonialuniforms.com/revolutionary-war-coats.html

https://www.berkleyhistorical.org/revolutionary-war-uniform

https://www.samsonhistorical.com/en-ca/products/mens-riding-boots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riding_boot

[kingofthescene]

Burr being sick as hell during the war.

To George Washington from Lieutenant Colonel Aaron Burr, 24 October 1778

From Lieutenant Colonel Aaron Burr

"Elizabethtown [N.J.] 24th Oct. 1778.

Sir:

The excessive heat and occasional fatigues of the preceding campaign, have so impaired my health and constitution as to render me incapable of immediate service. I have, for three months past, taken every advisable step for my recovery, but have the mortification to find, upon my return to duty, a return of sickness, and that every relapse is more dangerous than the former. I have consulted several physicians; they all assure me that a few months retirement and attention to my health are the only probable means to restore it. A conviction of this truth, and of my present inability to discharge the duties of my office, induce me to beg your Excellency’s permission to retire from pay and duty till my health will permit, and the nature of service shall more particularly require my attention, provided such permission can be given without subjecting me to any disadvantage in point of my present rank and command, or any I might acquire during the interval of my absence.

I shall still feel and hold myself liable to [be] called into service at your Excellency’s pleasure, precisely as if in full pay, and barely on furlough; reserving to myself only the privilege of judging of the sufficiency of my health during the present appearance of inactivity. My anxiety to be out of pay arises in no measure from intention or wish to avoid any requisite service. But too great a regard to malicious surmises, and a delicacy perhaps censurable, might otherwise hurry me unnecessarily into service, to the prejudice of my health, and without any advantage to the public, as I have had the misfortune already to experience.

I am encouraged in this proposal by the opinion Lord Stirling has been pleased to express of the justice of my request; the sense your Excellency must entertain of the weak state of the corps in which I have the honour to command, and the present sufficiency of its respective officers. I purpose keeping my quarters at this place until I have the honour of your Excellency’s answer, which I wait with impatience.1 I am, with respect, Your humble servant,

A. Burr"

[kingofthescene]

do you have any pictures of aaron burrs handwriting? any quotes you really like?

of course I do!

so this is one of the examples of his usual handwriting. I’d say his handwriting is the one I actually can understand and it’s very pretty indeed. Burr clearly didn’t improve it as much as Paterson wanted.

And this is his distressed handwriting. I LOVE how clear it is when you look at this letter to Dr. Hosack, how unreadable it is, with blotches, hastily written.

and if we’re talking about quotes... we’ll, this is a bit more difficult. I love his quote about law, specifically that law is a waste of his time and talents cause as a law student (again 😭) I can relate. or this small piece to, I think, Matt, “observe the uncertainty of all sublunary things” this is such a phrase, pretty.

“Hamilton works day and night with the most intemperate and outrageous zeal, but I think wholly without effect.”

“The question contained in your letter — “What my friends could do for me?” I must repeat, is very strange — what are they disposed to do for me & who are they?” (on the eve of his treason trial. every time I think of it it makes me black out)

“One say a lady stepped into my library while I was reading, came softly behind my chair, and giving me a slap on the cheek, said, ‘Come, tell me directly, what little French girl, pray, have you had here?’ The abruptness of the question and surprise left me little room to doubt the discovery had been completely made. So I thought it best to confess the whole fact; upon which the inquisitress burst out into a loud laugh on the success of her artifice, which she was led to play off upon me from the mere circumstance of having smelt musk in the room” (rip)

“ADIEU, MY DEAR LITTLE NEGLIGENT BAGGAGE”

“I have this day made a feint at law. But, were my life at stake, it could not command my attention”

“I can play the fool. No one can do it better, no one does it more”

“I must be very sick tomorrow and next day, but have not yet determined what disorder I will have. For the three days past it has been a dysentery. The headache did very well for two or three days preceding, and I think to come back to it tomorrow”

“I never go to bed but with regret, and by violence to myself”

“Having sent you but one letter since my arrival in England. How could I write to you? To be sure, there have been opportunities plenty, but what to say; that I saw no prospect of getting out, and was living precariously? This would distress you. To lie outright, and say you might expect me soon? That, also, might be a new source of solicitude. So I have left it to the newspapers”

I can do it all day.

[kingofthescene]

Burr: Part 02.

Meanwhile, with Burr, things appear to be incredibly different. Especially because he had no family to fight for him and bring light to his achievements rather than his bad reputation. Slander and rumors that had been spread about him for God knows how long. His parents died, his sister died, his wife died, his children all died, nephew died, and his grandchildren had all died. He had outlived everyone and had no one to advocate for him, which is something he desperately needed. I feel like it would have made a significant difference. Another thing that stood out to me (how could it not?) was the whole "Burr is un-opinionated"/"Burr stands for nothing" shit they constantly repeated and pushed the entire musical. It's insane. And a lie because Burr was known to be one of the most opinionated people, he was way ahead of his time with a lot of his beliefs. And here's why! The reasons why Burr "standing for nothing" is BULLSHIT: He was an proto-feminist/fierce women's rights advocate. Burr was a huge admirer of Mary Wollstonecraft. (he even kept a portrait of her with him). He was devoted to his daughter (Theodosia Burr Alston), whom he had educated according to the principles promulgated in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) by Mary Wollstonecraft. For those unfamiliar with Mary Wollstonecraft and her work, her book on women's rights is described as "a classic of rationalist feminism that is considered the earliest and most important treatise advocating equality for women." She argued that the educational system deliberately trained women to be frivolous and incapable and that if girls were allowed the same advantages as boys, then women would not only be exceptional wives and mothers, but also capable workers in many professions. Burr wholeheartedly agreed with Wollstonecraft, and this, as well as his devotion as a father - he wanted the absolute best for his daughter - plays a huge part in why Theodosia Jr. was known to be one of the best educated women of her time. - Theodosia Jr. had learned to read and write by age three. - By her tenth birthday she had finished all six volumes of Edward Gibbons’ The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. - Theodosia had been given an equal opportunity education, she was able to study subjects that had traditionally been reserved for boys (such as Greek, Latin, Arithmetic, and so on)...she was fluent in French as well. Theodosia practiced piano, took lessons in dancing, and learned to skate. She was a prodigy and was widely acknowledged for her intelligence and sophistication. Not only that, but Aaron Burr set up a school, with Madame de Senat, for young ladies in New York City in 1793. Hell, he even used his position/ time in the Senate and attempted to submit legislation to allow women the right to vote (but it was unfortunately denied. He did the same thing and called for the immediate abolishment of slavery but it was denied as well.)

[kingofthescene]

Burr: Part 01.

As someone who has been doing research on Aaron Burr for years and years now, something that genuinely frustrates me about "Hamilton: An American Musical" is how Burr's character is treated throughout the entirety of it. It's very strange because to me, it seemed as though they were downplaying/disregarding Burr's own accomplishments in order to bring light to Hamilton's and put him on a pedestal instead. The way they go about this in the musical is very odd. Burr has been dehumanized and villainzed throughout history and his actual life due to his enemies - men like Hamilton himself, Thomas Jefferson, and so on. Vindictive people who made it their life/were dedicated to ruining Burr's life and reputation. Many lyrics stand out to me and I can't help but roll my eyes at some of them. Even in the first song of the musical alone; "His enemies destroyed his rep, America forgot him." That line speaks more to Burr than it does to Hamilton. The damage Burr's enemies, Hamilton included, still lingers around today and he's still known as one of the most hated men in history. Even more so because of how many people refuse to do actual research on him, they watch a musical, or read two pages from a very biased and not very credible book (Chernow, I'm coming for you), then come to a conclusion/form an opinion on someone they truly know nothing about simply due to the fact that they didn't care enough to educate themselves. Lin Manuel Miranda himself admitted that when he was writing this play that Burr was an after thought, didn't see him as human. Though with how much he praised Chernow's book - to the point where he wrote an entire musical based off that nonsense - I would be lying if I said I was surprised, I didn't expect anything more or less. The historical inaccuracies and lack of research always did bother me when it came to this musical in particular. The little "America forgot him" line bothers me as well because as small of a line as it is, it just is not true. Hamilton's family have been fighting for him since the day of his death (for over 100 years), saving his reputation and painting him in the best light in order to secure his legacy. He's the guy on the ten dollar bill, numerous statues of this man posted not only in New York, but in Boston, Chicago, etc. There's one in the U.S Capitol. What about this screams "forgotten"?

[kingofthescene]

I wouldn't really call myself a Hamilton fan, more of a history (amrev) enthusiast, if anything. However, I will admit that I was very big/involved in the fandom years ago during its peak but even back then, the biggest thing that bothered then and still bothers me to this day was the historical inaccuracies in the musical (as well as fans of the musical taking it as fact, then spreading misinformation rather than doing actual research on a subject), as well as the fact that so many people seemed to miss the point of the entire musical. I'm a huge history nerd, that's why I had originally gotten into the musical to begin with. As a theater kid, I can say that from a musical standpoint, it’s good, there’s no denying that (musically, anyway). But from a more historical standpoint? Ehhh. A lot could have been done/could have been handled differently. Though with the musical being based off of Ron Chernow’s biography on Hamilton (which is not the most credible source due to how biased Chernow is), it’s not that much of a surprise. Something that irks me about Hamilton fans is that they take everything that comes out of that man’s mouth as fact when a lot of the time he’s unable to back up a lot of his random “facts”. It’s frustrating because it’s the same people who believe that the musical is historically accurate (because they refuse to do their own research) when that couldn’t be any further from the truth. No offense, but a huge chunk of Hamilton fans are genuinely ignorant and uneducated. One of my biggest problems with this musical is how it, as well as its fandom, treats Aaron Burr. I’ll be making a separate post about Burr specifically because there really is a lot to say about him in general.