Ghost Garrison's home page

Early1800 Army Tents

And The Decision Of 1843

Kyle McGonigle

Tents have been a form of shelter as long as their have been armies. For almost as long, tents have been the subject of complaints by soldiers as they found themselves living “under canvas”.

In the early 1800's U.S. Army the standard tents were the “A” shaped common tent (called a dog tent by the rank and file), wall tent, and the hospital tent. The common tent slept 6 soldiers. Two officers below the rank of Captain shared one wall tent. Captains and above had a wall tent to themselves. Field grade officers had use of two wall tents while General officers were issued either three wall tents or one wall tent and a marquee.

Use of these cloth quarters was not limited to excursions in the field or during war conditions. When Fort Snelling was being rebuilt, troops lived in tents while the old fort structures were being torn down and the new replacements built. Tent living extended into winter when construction had ceased. The same was true at Fort Atkinson, T.I. during early construction and, in all probability, at many other posts as initial building took place.

In these more modern times, observance of a reenactment camp reveals tents made from a number of natural and man-made fabrics. In earlier times cotton or hemp duck material were the choices. Responding to complaints relative to the poor service provided by army tents a resolution of the U. S. House of Representatives on the 3^rd of March 1842 instructed the Secretary of War to determine the fitness of cotton as an article for tents etc. At this time hemp duck was being used for tents and wagon covers.

On December 7, 1843 J. M. Porter of the War Department transmitted a report of the Quartermaster General of the Army, who had been charged with inquiry by the Department. It read:

Sir: In obedience to your order of the 10^th of April, I have the honor to report, under a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 3d March, requiring information as to the fitness of cotton for tents, etc, that I took immediate measures to obtain the information required by the order and resolution, and I now submit copies of reports received from Colonel Stanton and Major Tomkins - one of whom served two, and the latter three campaigns against the Southern Indians. Their views I know, from my own experience in the field, to be correct; and I would not, therefore, advise that cotton be substituted for hempen cloth, either for tents or for any other articles required for the service, in the manufacture of which hempen cloth is now used.

I have the honor to be, Most Respectfully, Sir Your Obedient Servant

Thomas S. Jesup, Quartermaster General

The report from Colonel Henry Stanton, Assistant Quartermaster General which was submitted by Jesup read as follows:

Office of Clothing and Equipage

Philadelphia, September 14, 1843

General: Your letter of the 11^th inst., reminding me of you having transmitted to me, on the 19^th of April last, a resolution of the House of Representatives 3d March, requiring reports in relation to the “fitness of cotton for tents” etc, came duly to hand.

Although much time has elapsed since the receipt of your letter referred to, the subject has not escaped my recollection; but its final consideration has been delayed with the view of testing, by some experiments commenced at the arsenal, the fitness of cotton for tents, etc., compared with hempen duck for the same purposes, which, it is hoped, would enable me to arrive at some definite conclusions in relation to it. But as the experiments referred to cannot be completed for some time, and as a further delay of my report might be attended with inconvenience, I am under the necessity of making it upon rather limited information which I have been able to obtain from less satisfactory sources.

Having little personal experience to guide me in forming an opinion upon the matter in question, I early sought for the desired information from intelligent mechanics and others, whose opportunities for practical observations entitle their opinions to credit; from all which I have arrived at the conclusions following:

1^st That the first cost of cotton material for tents is usually about 20% less than hempen canvass.

2^nd That cotton tents are more impervious to wind and rain than hempen, and are consequently more comfortable in cold, windy, or wet weather.

3^rd That cotton is less durable, by at least 30%, than hempen material;

4^th And is besides, unquestionably more liable to imbibe mildew in all (but particularly in damp) weather and situations.

5^th It absorbs more water, and is consequently heavier when wet.

6^th It is more bulky, and, if rolled or packed up in warm weather, and in a damp state, might be greatly injured, if not ruined, in much less time than would seriously injure hempen canvass under similar circumstances.

7^th Its contraction from damp or wet is greater than that experienced by hempen material, and therefore more liable, (as has been found by actual experience in Florida, where cotton was extensively used for wagon covers), if tightly stretched when dry, to tear out the loops by which it may be confined, on becoming suddenly wet.

Although I entertain the hope, in commencing my investigations of this subject, of being able to establish, the facts, the superiority of the domestic over the foreign production for the purposes in question, I am never the less compelled to state that in my opinion hemp is a preferable material for tents, and other military purposes than cotton.

There are some considerations which weigh in favor of cotton canvass for sailcloth, which are not regarded in deciding upon its fitness for military purposes. Among which, the important one of its being less liable to injury from chafing than hempen duck.

I transmit with this, a letter addressed to me by Major Tomkins giving his views as to the comparative fitness of cotton and hemp for tents, etc.

I remain, General, Most Respectfully, Your Obedient Servant

Henry Stanton, Assistant quartermaster General

Major Tomkins wrote as follows:

Assistant Quartermaster Office

Philadelphia, May 5, 1843

Sir: Your letter, dated Office of Clothing and Equipments, Philadelphia May 3, 1843, asking my experience and opinion in regard to the use of hempen duck and cotton canvass for military purposes; as respects their value, I have received. From two years experience in the Quartermaster Department in Florida, where I used both hempen duck and cotton canvass for wagon covers, I found that the former was less liable to mildew, and would last nearly as long again as the later, with equal exposures; for two reasons: 1^st, When wet, it does not fill up and become stiff, as cotton does; it will pack in this state in a less compass; 2^nd, When wet it will not weigh as much to the square yard (of equal thickness) as cotton canvass, which is a matter of importance as regards transportation. Another objection occurs to me against the use of cotton canvass for tents. Should a tent be pitched when the cloth is dry, the pins driven in firm ground, and a rain fall upon it, it would, in my opinion, fill up so as either to draw the pins or break the loops which pass over the pins when up. This occurring in the night, would

cause great inconvenience as well as discomfort to the soldier. From the above, I would give hempen duck the preference for all field purposes.

I am Sir, Very Respectfully, Your Obedient Servant

D.D. Tompkins

Major and Assistant Quartermaster.

With this body of enlightened opinion the die was cast. Army tents were to be made exclusively of hempen duck as were wagon covers. Henry Stanton’s opinion “That the first cost of cotton material for tents is usually about 20% less than hempen canvass.” and “that cotton tents are more impervious to wind and rain than hempen, and are consequently more comfortable in cold, windy, or wet weather.” seemed to be of lesser important than the other more practical considerations of the Quartermaster General such as the weight when wet, likeliness to mildew, and shrinkage when dry.

Less than two years later, during the Mexican War, field-hardened regulars found problems with their tents in the summer of 1845 while assembled at Corpus Christi.

Lt. Daniel Harvey Hill of the 4^th Artillery stated in an article published anonymously that “Two-thirds of the tents furnished the army on taking the field were worn out and rotten, and had been condemned by boards of survey appointed by the proper authorities in accordance with the provisions of the army regulation on that subject. Transparent as gauze, they afforded little or no protection against the intense heat of summer, or the drenching rains and severe cold of winter. Even the dews penetrated the thin covering almost without obstruction. Such were the tents, provided for campaigning in a country almost deluged three months in the year, and more variable in its climate than any other region in the world ...the rains were pouring down with violence, or the furious “northers” were shivering the frail tent poles, and rending the rotten canvass [sic]. For days and weeks, every article in hundreds of tents was thoroughly soaked.” This, of course, had its effects on both moral and general health.

In the mid-1800's the tentage and polls were carried in wagons. Each company had use of one wagon. When an army was on the march it was not uncommon for the troops to arrive at a camp site before the wagon train. In such cases if the soldiers were fortunate, by the time they had cleared and prepared the camp site the wagons would have arrived with their tentage. If fortune didn’t smile, not only would they be without shelter but without cooking gear and other company property.

Regardless of their functionality, army tents were set up in a very orderly manner as spelled out in General Regulations. A myriad of writers have commented on the precision found in the arrangement of Army camps. The encampments of “regulars” were described as “neat” and “orderly”. One young officer experiencing his first large encampment wrote “If one knows the rank, regiment and company of an individual it is possible to walk directly to his tent no matter the size of camp.”

Although similar in appearance, during this early period there was no standardization set for Army tentage. Standardization didn’t occur until 1865 when regulations set measurements for all tents. For example, the wall tent of the Civil War was to be 8 foot 6 inches in height, 9 feet in length, and 9 feet in height. The wall height was to be 3 feet 9 inches, the door height 7 feet and the wall eves 2 feet. Fly measurements were set as a length of 15 feet 6 inches and a width of 9 feet. By contrast, during the Mexican War, Samuel R. Curtis when describing the tent of his friend Major John L. Gardner of the 4^th Regiment of Artillery wrote, “he is lounging on his cot. His tent is a common wall tent 12 feet square.” (Also mentioned were a trunk, box, and camp stove.)

Generally, paintings and the few photographs which exist show these early wall tents with highter peaks than those of the Civil War. The common tent of this period was also slightly taller, longer, and wider than its later counterpart.

With the wisdom of 20/20 hindsight, the decision made in 1843 to use hempen duck may not have been wise when health and morale are taken into consideration. Both of these factors were of particular import during the Mexican War.

Colonel Samuel R. Curtis writing from Matamoros recorded “In my regiment there are 150 on the sick list. The same proportion at Camp Washington ...” Analyzing the causes of illness among the troops, Surgeon Charles S. Tripler stated, in part, “The quarters occupied by our troops are for the most part open to the weather...”

It would seem there was some justification for complaint while living “under canvas”.

Space for this Web site provided courtesy of Dodgnet of Fort Dodge, IA