FOOTNOTES

  1. Stephen J. Allie, All He Could Carry - U.S. Army Infantry Equipment: 1839-1910, Fort Leavenworth Historical Society Publication, Pages 2 and 3.

  2. Robert O. Day, The Mormon Battalion - The Lord’s Faithful, Day to Day Enterprises, Oviedo, Florida, 1996, Page 49.
  3. John F. Yurtinus, A Ram In The Thickt: The Mormon Battalion in the Mexican War, unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1975, Page 76.
  4. Extracts from the Journal of Henry W. Bigler, Utah Historical Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 2 April 1932, Pages 36 and 37.
  5. Journal of Robert S. Bliss With The Mormon Battalion, Utah Historical Quarterly, Volume 4, August 1846, Pages 76 and 77.
  6. Robert O. Day, Page 53. This journal excerpt is taken from Henry W. Sanderson’s autobiography. The $40.00 amount is at odds with what a private should have received for his clothing allowance. Has time clouded this good man’s recollection of events, as was certainly the case with many Battalion veterans interviewed by Daniel Tyler, or was Pvt. Sanderson shorted by the U.S. Army paymaster?
  7. Reminiscences of Zadok Knapp Judd, 1827-1909, Kent Brooksby, Ol’ Buffalo Mormon Battalion Page website: http://www.three-peaks.net/battalion.htm
  8. Christopher Layton, Christopher Layton - Colonizer, Statesman, Leader, Publishers Press, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1966, Page 34. A “cartouche” in this reference is defined by the dictionary as either: (1) “a casing for gunpowder, the paper casing of a firework or cartridge; or (2) an oval or oblong shape containing writing,” such as the stamped brass “US” oval cartridge box plate and belt plate. Both definitions are applicable in this description and which the author was attempting to describe remains unclear.
  9. Richard Bruce Winders, Mr. Polk’s Army, Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas, 1997, Pages 92 and 93.
  10. Gregory J. W. Urwin, The United States Infantry, An Illustrated History: 1775-1918, Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1991, Page 66. Although the U.S. Army had officially adopted the percussion system by the time of the Mexican War, resistance from General Winfield Scott meant that most of his regular infantrymen began the march to Mexico City with flintlock muskets. In the general’s preparations for the invasion of Vera Cruz, Scott requested that his soldiers be armed with flintlocks in order to standardize logistics. He was concerned about the supply of percussion caps over perilous routes. Flints, unlike percussion caps, could always be located, manufactured, or captured. However, by the end of the war, the U.S. Army had issued more than twice as many percussion caps as flints, a clear sign of the military’s transition to percussion weapons. (For example, Company A, 4th  U.S. Artillery reported on June 30, 1847 that it was equipped with 87 percussion muskets and only 14 old-style flintlocks.)
  11. Richard Bruce Winders, Page 97.
  12. Ibid., Page 93.
  13. Ibid., Page 97.
  14. For years, firearm experts have speculated that the Mormon Battalion might have been issued a fourth type of weapon, the U.S. Rifle Model 1817, or “Common Rifle.” To date, there is no documentation or known surviving weapons to support this notion. Like the Model 1803, the Model 1817 Common Rifle was a .54 caliber flintlock rifle that was not fitted for a bayonet.

  15. Firearm experts continue to disagree on whether or not the Model 1816 Type II musket, manufactured between 1822 and 1831, should be officially referred to as the Model 1822. Although the Model 1816 flintlock musket was one of the most common weapons of the Mexican War, no other regulation firearm has been the subject of as much controversy concerning its proper designation. Early authorities have, in addition to the Model 1816 designation, referred to this particular musket as either Model 1821, 1822 or 1831.” The U.S. Musket, Model 1816, is one of the arms that has badly confused the student, because the proper interpretation has not been placed on Wadsworth’s letters. The failure to use the correspondence which portrays the build-up, adoption, and improvements made to this model, together with later ordnance records referring to it as the model of 1822, has all tended to confuse the experts. Duplication of these weapons proved unsatisfactory and the Springfield Armory further confused production by adding improvements after the prototypes were released. Negotiations with contractors continued until 1822, when the final design was decided. Thirty prototype muskets marked “MODEL 1822" were provided to various contractors. The hundreds of thousands of weapons produced became typed as the Model 1822 thereafter. Firearm authority Arcadi Gluckman in his 1959 milestone book entitled, “Identifying Old U.S. Muskets, Rifles And Carbines” refers to this flintlock weapon as the Model 1816, citing an 1816 document which authorized the original prototypes made in 1817. Gluckman ignored the 1841 Ordnance Manual and the nomenclature it set forth for this weapon, “Model 1822.” Unfortunately, the controversy remains unresolved with experts firmly entrenched on both sides of the issue. For the purposes of this limited study, the smoothbore flintlock musket issued to the majority of the soldiers in the Mormon Battalion is referred to as a U.S. Model 1816, Type II.

  16. Norm Flayderman, Flayderman’s Guide to Antique American Firearms and Their Values, 7th Edition, Krause Publications, Iola, Wisconsin, Page 443.
  17. Glen Leonard, Curator of LDS Museum of Church History and Art.
  18. Ol’ Buffalo Mormon Battalion Page website: http://www.three-peaks.net/battalion.htm
  19. Norm Flayderman, Page 437.
  20. Ibid.
  21. Norma Ricketts, The Mormon Battalion - U.S. Army of the West, Utah State University Press, Logan, Utah, 1996, Page 38.
  22. Norm Flayderman, Page 453.
  23. Ibid.
  24. James E. Hicks, U.S. Military Firearms: 1776-1956, Borden Publishing Company, Vista, California, Page 71.
  25. Norm Flayderman, Page 453.
  26. An important medical requirement for those enlisting in the U.S. Army during the Mexican War was for each volunteer to have at least four front teeth in order to tear the paper tail off a prepacked cartridge to expose the powder and load his weapon.
  27. Joseph G. Bilby, Civil War Firearms, Combined Publishing, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 1996, Pages 19 and 32. Single ball loads for the .69 caliber Model 1816 fired undersized .64 caliber projectiles to facilitate quick loading, at the expense of accuracy. The cartridge paper around the ball helped to fill up the “windage” or clearance between the diameter of the undersized ball and the .69 caliber barrel, providing some benefits of a patch.
  28. Ibid., Page 20. In the 1840's the caliber of the American musket ball was increased to .65 and the gun’s powder charge was reduced from 130 to 110 grains. Although accuracy improved somewhat, most military men continued to rely on multiple projectiles to improve combat hit ratios.
  29. Ibid., Pages 18,19 and 20. By the time of the American Revolution it was common practice to load smaller buckshot along with a musket ball in paper cartridges used in .69 and .75 caliber muskets. The number of buckshot per cartridge varied. In October 1777, General George Washington recommended that his men deliver their first volley with a load of “one musket ball and four or eight buckshot, according to the strength of their pieces.” Single-ball, buck and ball, and straight buckshot loads of from twelve to fifteen pellets remained part of the American military ammunition inventory after the Revolutionary War. Due to limited effective range of straight buckshot loads, they were largely used as guard cartridges, while buck and ball became the military’s favored musket load. Between 1835 and 1840, three times as many buck and ball cartridges, loaded with a standard musket ball and three buckshot, were issued by the U.S. Ordnance Department as were single ball loads.
  30. Richard Bruce Winders, Page 103
  31. Philip Katcher, The Mexican-American War 1846-1848, Osprey Military Books, London, England, 1994, Page 13.
  32. Richard Bruce Winders, Page 95.
  33. Journal of William Coray, Page 36.
  34. Norma Ricketts, Page 63. According to one observer, “They are well drilled, a shabby-looking set.”
  35. The Mormon Battalion took well to military training as many, if not most, of men were former members of the Nauvoo Legion and were familiar with military order, discipline, and drill. The Illinois Legislature, of which Abraham Lincoln was then a member, granted a very liberal charter to the City of Nauvoo, allowing the city council to organize a body of militiamen. On February 3, 1841, the Nauvoo Legion was organized into two “cohorts,” one of horse and one of foot. The Legion grew from just under 1,500 members in 1841 to over 5,000 by 1845.
  36. Philip Katcher, Page 8. Most Mexican War regular soldiers were members of the sixteen U.S. Army infantry regiments formed prior to the conflict. At full strength, a 1,000-man infantry regiment consisted of ten companies of 100 men each. The ten companies were lettered A, B, C, D E, F, G, H, I, and K. The letter “J” was not used as it was too easily confused with the letter “I” when written in period style handwriting. The 500-man Mormon Battalion consisted of five companies lettered A, B, C, D, and E. Each company was authorized to have one captain, one 1st lieutenant, two 2nd lieutenants, four sergeants, four corporals, two musicians, 100 privates, and three to four laundresses.
  37. Stephen J. Allie, Pages 5 and 6, and Joseph G. Bilby, Page 16. A British government test conducted in 1846 found the maximum range of a smoothbore musket with a muzzle elevation of five degrees to be “about 650 yards.” After a series of tests at various distances, the British board concluded that “as a general rule, musketry fire should not be made at a distance exceeding 150 yards and certainly not exceeding 200 yards, as at and beyond that range it would be a mere waste of ammunition to do so.” With these facts in mind, infantry tactics of the time were based on the short-range and relatively rapid fire of smoothbore muskets.
  38. Richard Bruce Winders, Page 93.
  39. Ibid., Page 97.
  40. Norma Ricketts, Page 36.
  41. Robert O. Day, Page 54.
  42. Norma Ricketts, Page 95, and David L. Bigler and Will Bagley, Army of Israel, Utah State University Press, Logan, Utah, 2000, Page 159. Lt. Col. Cooke continued to regularly drill his Battalion even after it reached California.
  43. Stephen J. Allie, Page 5.
  44. Norma Ricketts, Page 38.
  45. Elma Odegard, International Society, Daughters of the Utah Pioneers, Photographs 736 and 1222. Cartridge box expert Paul D. Johnson examined enlargements of these photographs and offered the following opinion: “I have looked over the photographs you provided and the cartridge box pictured is of a common type made in the 1820s and 1830s for militia units. These cartridge boxes were mass-produced for entire units in the eastern part of the United States and some, undoubtably, made their way into western forts and arsenals. Cartridge boxes carrying twenty four cartridges was the standard for the military until the Pattern of 1839 boxes were issued to regular U.S. Army units. The Pattern of 1839 box was designed to carry 40 cartridges. The militia boxes were not manufactured or supplied through the U.S. Ordnance Department, but instead were a local production and very little is known about them. The differences among various cartridge box patterns used during this time period is incredible. Defining a particular box to a specific time period is about impossible, unless a name is attached to the items. If you can supply such, I might be able to trace records about the individual that manufactured the box in question. These cartridges boxes more than likely supplemented the gear that Fort Leavenworth had on hand just prior to the Mexican War. They appear to be locally produced boxes that were the old style with leather flap nailed to the wood block and held in place with a small leather button. Without physically looking at the box firsthand, this is about all the information I can provide.”
  46. The five cavalry sabers listed as part of Company A’s itemized equipment invoice are not completely described. However,these edged weapons were most likely 1840 “old wrist breaker” sabers. American military swords and sabers were not scandalized prior to 1840, as the U.S. Army lacked a mounted branch during most of those years and there was little need. What few requirements that did existed for swords was satisfied by the Model 1833 Dragoon saber and the 1832 foot artillery sword. According to regulations, all officers, including non-commissioned officers, were entitled to wear swords. It is interesting to note that Company A’s itemized invoice does not include saber belts, although several different types, including the 1832, 1839, and 1841patterns, were available
  47. Stephen J. Allie, Page 4.
  48. R. T. Huntington, Accoutrements of the United States Infantry, Riflemen, and Dragoons 1834-1839, Historical Arms Series No. 20, Museum Restoration Service, Alexandria Bay, New York, Pages 13 and 14. This small booklet is perhaps the definitive source of information on the evolution of U.S. military accouterments during this time period.
  49. Ibid, Pages 6 and 13. The presence of this stamped brass cartridge box plate on the Transcript For Ordnance Stores Issued To Company A, Mormon Battalion (Figure 7) renders certain that the cartridge boxes issued Company A of the Mormon Battalion are of the Pattern1839 style. Neither the 1808 nor the 1828 cartridge box was adorned with a decorative brass box plate. The box plate, which was filled with lead, helped keep the outer flap of the cartridge box closed and its contents dry. During most the 1830's, Major Rufus L. Baker commanded the Allegheny Arsenal in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania where U.S. Army accouterments were made, stored, and issued. Major Baker was a prolific letter writer who was not reluctant to criticize equipment patterns and offer suggestion for improvement. He had a major role in developing the details of the “new pattern” accouterments that were adopted in 1839. It is in fact to Major Baker that we owe the design of the oval brass “US” stamped belt plate and cartridge box plate, and the leather percussion primer pouch that was adopted in 1845.
  50. Stephen J. Allie., Page 4. Buff leather is so called from the fact that buffalo or deer skins were commonly dressed in a manner that produced a rough leather that is very strong and durable. Whitened buff leather had whiteners added during the tanning process in order to give a much lighter color. This color was not originally a pure white but tended to be in the range of a yellowish-white or what we would call an antique white. Originally whitened buff was whitened with "Paris Whitening,” a form of chalk.

  1. Richard Bruce Winders, Page 102. With the introduction of the U.S. Model 1842 percussion musket just prior to the Mexican War, the military modified its standard set of Pattern 1839 accouterments. (See Figure 21.) A small white buff frog sewn onto a black leather bayonet scabbard allowed the scabbard to be suspended directly from the Pattern1839 waist belt. The use of this type of scabbard arrangement made the over the shoulder baldric obsolete. After the abolishment of the bayonet scabbard belt, the M-1828 eagle breast plate was placed on the cartridge box belt as a decorative ornament. A further refinement for soldiers issued percussion muskets was the introduction of a primer cap pouch which was also suspended on the Pattern 1839 waist belt. Percussion caps were originally held in the pockets of uniform fatigue jackets, but cap pouches were developed by 1845 and included in the 1850 Ordnance Manual. The width of the waist belt was increased to 1.9-inches to accommodate the bayonet scabbard and cap pouch. This new, wider belt required a larger “US” stamped brass belt plate.
  2. Gregory J. W. Urwin, Page 66. To enhance uniformity, regular soldiers in Mexico with General Winfield Scott whitened their russet leather musket slings and black knapsack straps with white pipe clay. There is no evidence that soldiers in the Mormon Battalion followed this practice.
  3. Stephen J. Allie, Page 5.
  4. Colonel H.L. Scott, Military Dictionary, D. Van Nostrand, New York City, New York, 1864, Page 26.
  5. Stephen J. Allie, Page 5.
  6. Christopher Layton, Page 30. According to Private Layton, “We were marched to the Missouri River, a distance of eight miles, to purchase blankets and other necessary articles for the campaign . . .”
  7. Fredrick P. Todd, American Military Equipage 1851-1872, Charles Scribner and Sons, New York, New York, 1980, Page 212.
  8. David L. Bigler (Editor), Gold Discovery Journal of Azariah Smith, Publications in Mormon Studies, Volume 7, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1990, Page 14.
  9. Stephen J. Allie, Page 5.
  10. David Nevin, The Mexican War, The Old West, Time-Life Books, Alexandria, Virginia, 1978, Page 58.
  11. Stephen J. Allie, Page 5. The tin version was the most durable and the most commonly issued canteen during the Mexican War. Its acceptance over the leather or rubber versions is shown by a contract for 5,000 tin canteens which was let out as late as February 7, 1854 to the firm of William W. Hughes. There is a single surviving tin canteen in the collection of the LDS Museum of Church History and Art, but its authenticity is suspect.
  12. The painting “Mormon Battalion” by LDS artist George M. Ottinger (1833-1917) offers the best evidence of the type of knapsack issued to the Mormon Battalion. The painting, completed in 1881, the same year Daniel Tyler published his history of the Battalion, depicts the Mormon soldiers at Carrizo Creek in southeastern California. A number of the men are wearing what appears to be black hardpack knapsacks with “US” stenciled in white paint on the back flap. Unfortunately, the scale of this painting does not provide the detail needed to make a definitive determination, but Ottinger’s work was based on first-hand accounts from surviving Battalion members. He was familiar with military arms and equipment having served with the Lancaster (Pennsylvania) Fincibles, as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Utah Territory, and as a Brigadier General in Utah’s National Guard under Governor Caleb W. West. George Ottinger’s painting reflects his extensive military expertise and knowledge of the subject.
  13. Mormon Battalion, Inc., Mormon Battalion Commemorative Blanket, website: http://mormonbattalion.com/store/blanket/blanket.htm
  14. B. H. Roberts, The Mormon Battalion, Its History And Achievements, Maasai, Inc., Provo, Utah, 2001, Page 33. Robert’s short history of the Battalion, originally published in 1919, indicates, “At Fort Leavenworth the Battalion received its equipment of 100 tents, one for every 6 privates. . . “ However, in early November, Lt. Colonel Cooke decided to reduce the weight in the wagons because of the poor condition of many of the animals. He ordered that all extra camp kettles, mess pans, tent poles, and tents be sent back to Santa Fe in the last ox wagons under the command of Captain Burgwin. With the departure of the Mormon Battalion’s three sick detachments, it became necessary to reorganize the remaining volunteers into messes of nine men each. Without tent poles, the Battalion soldiers used their muskets to support their A-frame dwellings.
  15. Daniel Tyler, A Concise History of the Mormon Battalion in the Mexican War 1846-1848, Publishers Press, 1996, Page 134. According to Tyler, “We received our tents the same day [August 1st]; these added much to our comfort, but, as every rose has its thorn, so with our movable houses; the hot sun beating upon them made it warm for us in the middle of the day, though we were very comfortable compared with our previous conditions. Rickets (Page 36) adds from the William Coray journal, “The adjutant ordered a shade to be erected in front of our tents, which order was strictly obeyed.”
  16. Dan Talbot, A Historical Guide to the Mormon Battalion and Butterfield Trail, Westernlore Press,Tucson, Arizona, 1992, Page 22. How many of these cooking implements were provided each Battalion mess is unknown. A few of these camp items have survived over the years and are kept in storage at the LDS Museum of Church History and Art.
  17. Robert D. Paulus, “Logistics in the Mexican War,” Army Logistician, November/December 1997.
  18. Ron Field, History of Uniforms - Mexican-American War, 1846-1848, Brassey’s Ltd., London, England, 1997, Page 19.
  19. Robert D. Paulus and Ron Field, Page 23. To meet the problem of poorly clad volunteers, General Zachary Taylor ordered that they be allowed to purchase clothing from the government stores, while clothing was simply issued to volunteers in General Winfield Scott’s army, regardless of the law. In early 1848, after the fighting was over, the U.S. Congress changed the law so that future volunteers would be issued uniforms in the same fashion as regulars.
  20. Ron Field, Page 21.
  21. Richard Bruce Winders, Page 122.
  22. Norma Ricketts, Page 40.
  23. Richard Bruce Winders, Pages 103.
  24. Ibid., Pages 103 and 104.
  25. Ibid., Page 104.
  26. Gregory J. W. Urwin, Pages 66 and 67.
  27. William G. Hartley, “Gathering the Dispersed Nauvoo Saints, 1847-1852,” Ensign, July 1997, Volume27, Number 7, Page 22. (Footnote “From the Records of John Steel,” Treasures of Pioneer History, 2:40)
  28. Military Collector & Historian, Journal of the Company of Military Historians, Washington D.C., Volume XLVII, Number 3, Fall 1995, Page 128.
  29. Ibid.
  30. This information is from the author’s personal copy of the artist’s background information sheet provided with each limited edition art print “Reunion - The Journey Home.” Artist Rick Reeves does an excellent job in portraying this detachment of Battalion soldiers. However, the soldiers appear without bayonet scabbard belts and, instead, are depicted wearing bayonet scabbards on their waist belts. The canteens shown are wooden and painted a sky blue to match the color of regular U.S. Army fatigue uniforms of the Mexican War. It is unlikely that Mormon Battalion soldiers received white musket slings or painted their russet colored slings to match those preferred by regular soldiers in the Mexican War. (See Footnote 52.)
  31. Norma Ricketts Page 36.
  32. Norma Ricketts, Page 35. In fairness to historian Norma Ricketts, these two sentences appeared in the first edition of her excellent book and have been changed in subsequent editions and now read, “A knapsack carried clothes and other necessities on the back, and an army-issued blanket was rolled and carried on top of it.”
  33. David L. Bigler and Will Bagley, Army of Israel, Utah State University Press, Logan, Utah, 2000, Page 217. There are dozens of example of the license used by artists in depicting the Mormon Battalion, but one of the strangest, and perhaps the most inexcusable, is Charles B. Hancock’s drawing entitled “The Mormon Battalion’s Fourth of July.” As a soldier in the Battalion, Hancock illustrated the Battalion’s celebration of the nation’s birthday at the Pueblo de Los Angeles. Conical-shaped Sibley tents are clearly seen in the background of Hancock’s artwork. The story behind the development and use of these 12-man tents is at odds with their depiction of a Mormon Battalion scene by a Battalion solider who was actually there. Major Henry H. Sibley was assigned to Fort Belknap in Texas during the mid1850's. While there, he visited the teepee of a Comanche chief and discovered that this type of shelter was surprisingly useful and warm. Using his experience as inspiration, Major Sibley developed for the U.S. Army the tent that bares his name, a simple canvas cone that measured 12 feet tall and 18 feet in diameter. The tent’s design allowed for the use of a single center pole rather than multiple poles of contemporary canvas shelters. A lightweight stove, with a few pieces of stove pipe to vent smoke from an opening at the top, proved heat during times of cold weather. The War Department adopted the Major’s tent for the frontier army and it was later used by both sides in the Civil War. However, the Sibley tent was not available during the Mexican War. Did Charles Hancock draw from a faulty memory or is the history of this particular tent design in error?

FIGURES
 Figure 1 Major James E. Hicks, U.S. Military Firearms: 1776-1956, Borden Publishing Company, Vista, California, Plate 22.

Figure 2 Ibid., Plate 7.

Figure 3 Ibid., Plate 38.

Figure 4 Dom Dal Bello, The Advanced Guard, Army of the Pacific Newsletter, No. 99C-1, Goleta, California, May 1999, Page 6.

Figure 5 Fredrick P. Todd, American Military Equipage 1851-1872, Charles Scribner and Sons, New York, New York, 1980, Page 184. Drawings by George Woodbridge.

Figure 6 C&D Jarnagin website: http://www.jarnaginco.com

Figure 7 Norma Ricketts, The Mormon Battalion - U.S. Army of the West, Utah State University Press, Logan, Utah, 1996, Page 38.

Figure 8 Todd, Page 84. Drawings by George Woodbridge.

Figure 9 Ibid., Pages 192 and 227.

Figure 10 Ibid., Page 84.

Figure 11 Ibid., Page 220.

Figure 12 Ibid., Page 84.

Figure 13 Hicks, Plates 22 and 47.

Figure 14 Todd, Page 213. Drawings by George Woodbridge.

Figure 15 Ibid., Page 215.

Figure 16 C&D Jarnagin website: http://www.jarnaginco.com

Figure 17 Stephen J. Allie, All He Could Carry - U.S. Army Infantry Equipment: 1839-1910, Fort Leavenworth Historical Society Publication, Pages 2-3.

Figure 18 Gregory J. W. Urwin, The United States Infantry, An Illustrated History: 1775-1918, Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1991, Page 67.

Figure 19 Eric Manders, Journal of the Company of Military Historians, Washington D.C., Volume XLVII, Number 3, Fall 1995, “Mormon Battalion, New Mexico, 1846" - Color Plate No. 737. The cover illustrations is also by Eric Manders from the same publication referenced above.

Figure 20 Rick Reeves Limited Edition Print, “Reunion - The Journey Home,” Collector’s Historical Prints, Inc., Tampa, Florida.

Figure 21 Todd, Pages 195 and 220. Drawings by George Woodbridge.