CONCLUSION

While not a uniformed body in the traditional military sense, the Mormon Battalion was issued

U.S. Army arms, accouterments and other equipment that lent their 500-man formation a military appearance. As with other Mexican War volunteer units from that general region of the country, such as Alexander Doniphan’s Missouri infantry regiment and Sterling Price’s mounted regiment, the Mormon Battalion was provided with the best equipment the U.S. Army had on hand at Fort Leavenworth.

Statements found in histories of the Battalion such as, “Every man received a wide, heavy, white leather waist belt, with orders to keep it clean” or “This white belt was the only common article of uniform the men had”⁸¹ are most likely the errant recollections of individual soldiers long after their military experience. Equally misleading is how the Battalion’s equipment was used. Again, historical accounts record such notions as, “Each man had a knapsack for clothes and other necessities, which was carried in front. Their bedding was carried on their backs.”^“82 Statements such as these, if not completely false, are certainly misleading. Hopefully, this short overview has helped clarify the specific military arms and accouterments issued and used by the Mormon Battalion along with the military training the soldiers received.

A number of important questions and issues surrounding the Mormon Battalion and its military experience remain for historians to research and answer. Satisfactory responses to these questions most likely will prove elusive and may never be discovered. However, Battalion historians, especially those interested in the military aspects of this unique unit, need to take a closer look at the following questions:

1. Where are the U.S. Ordnance Department transcripts from Fort Leavenworth for arms and accouterments issued to Mormon Battalion Companies B, C, D, and E? The document facsimiles that appear on pages 37 and 38 of Ricketts’ book, The Mormon Battalion - U.S. Army of the West 1846-1848, were provided to the author by the Historical Department of the LDS Church and offered invaluable insights to what type of U.S. Army equipment was issued to the soldiers of the Battalion. Does the United States National Archives and Records Administration or museum officials at Fort Leavenworth have additional military documents similar to those for Company A of the Mormon Battalion?

2. Why does the above mentioned U.S. Ordnance Department transcript facsimile fail to list the accouterments needed to fire and maintain the Model 1803 “half stock” rifles issued to Company A of the Mormon Battalion? Rifleman accouterments of the Mexican War differed from those used for smoothbore muskets. The document lists only the rifles themselves being issued to four members of this unit. Although Model 1803 rifles were provided to Company A, there is no listing on the transcripts of any military accouterments accompanying these weapons. Riflemen during the Mexican War received accouterments that differed from those issued to infantry soldiers. Developed with other new pattern accouterments during 1837 to 1839, a single 1.4-inch wide white buff leather shoulder belt held the rifleman’s two main accessories, a black leather ball pouch and a brass powder flask. Evidence indicated that troops issued the Model 1841 Mississippi Rifle received the carbine cartridge box instead of the pouch and flask. Mexican War riflemen used the same waist belt as the infantrymen before the addition of the cartridge box, but the added weight of this heavy accouterment necessitated the issue of a wider, sturdier belt.
    

3. Why, in some cases, does the number of arms issued to the men of Company A fail to match up with the total number of soldiers? Once again, according to the U.S. Ordnance Department transcript facsimile that appears on page 37 of Ricketts’ book, The Mormon Battalion - U.S. Army of the West 1846-1848, a total of 102 sabers, muskets, and rifles were issued to the men of Company A (5 cavalry sabers, 93 smoothbore muskets and 4 half-stock rifles). Assuming that the two Company musicians, Elisha Averette (Everett) and Joseph W. Richard were provided with fifes or drums and remained unarmed, several well researched rosters of Battalion men leave a number of soldiers marching off to war unarmed. Officers and NCO’s may have opted to purchase their own swords and pistols using money issued from their clothing allowance, first month’s pay, or personal funds.

Comparison of Mormon Battalion Company A Rosters

4. Why are there first hand account discrepancies in the number of ammunition cartridges issued to Battalion soldiers? Some individuals (Henry Bigler) recorded in their journals receiving 36 rounds of ammunition from military stores at Fort Leavenworth while others (Christopher Layton and Azariah Smith) mentioned only 24 cartridges being dolled out. The Pattern 1839 infantry cartridge box issued to Company A could hold a total of 40 rounds. Other companies of the Battalion may have been issued the Pattern 1828 infantry cartridge box which, unlike the Pattern 1839 cartridge box, had a wooden box bored with three rows of holes designed to hold a total of 28 cartridges upright. Still, the odd number of cartridges issued to the Battalion causes speculation on the type of cartridge boxes that might have been issued. An early model infantry cartridge box, used by Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, held a total of 24 cartridges in three rows of holes drilled to accommodate .75 caliber ammunition.
    

5. Is it possible that several different types of cartridge boxes were issued to the Mormon Battalion? The limited photographic evidence of Battalion veterans at reunions (Daughter of Utah Pioneers photographs 736 and 1222) seems to indicate that in addition to the Pattern 1839 box issued to Company A at least one other type of infantry cartridge box was issued to the Battalion by the U.S. Army. The infantry cartridge box that appears under the arm of George W. Hancock, Company C, in a photograph taken at the 50^th reunion of the Mormon Battalion in 1896 is far too wide to be a Model 1839 cartridge box. However, it is difficult to determine what type or model this particular box is.

6. Are there any original Mormon Battalion accouterments in existence? Other than the small pistol cartridge box owned by Captain Daniel C. Davis on permanent display in the LDS Museum of Church History and Art, the author is unaware of any surviving examples of Battalion infantry cartridge boxes, belts, knapsacks, etc. Photographic evidence indicates that at least some accouterments existed as late as 1896. Unfortunately, unless these artifacts are held in private family collections, Battalion infantry equipment may no longer exist.

7. Finally, why can’t artists depicting soldiers of the Mormon Battalion attempt to make an honest representation of their subject? Perhaps based on ignorance or limited information, a number of paintings and sculptures of Mormon Battalion soldiers do the injustice of showing their subjects dressed inappropriately, carrying arms that did not exist during the Mexican War, and wearing accouterments that bear little resemblance to those actually issued.⁸³ Artists and sculptors should feel a particular obligation to portray these brave and honored men as accurately as possible. Avoiding the research necessary and merely guessing at how these soldiers looked is irresponsible history. These oversights and errors go unnoticed by the casual, uninformed individual, but constitute a serious offense to those who have taken time to educate themselves on this important subject.