Capt Troxel's The 10th US Cavalry in Mexico

[Moonraker]

Troxel wrote an article in The Cavalry Journal 28 Oct 1917 and commented on the effects of campaigning on the men’s appearances:

‘As to clothing…Unfortunately, the men had gotten used to going out for Border duty and wearing their oldest clothes that many did the same thin this time. This made conditions worse than they should have been. Hood of stirrups were used to tack on as half-soles of shoes, when tacks were available. Breeches were patched so long as patches could hold them together, the men gambling to see whose shelter half was to be cut up for the purpose. Occasionally the Quartermaster bought and issued civilian clothing of all descriptions, and for hats the men took the lining of the saddle bags in the few cases where hats were lost or completely torn up. I got patches from the lining of my overcoat.’

 

Has any member seen photographic or surviving evidence of the patched and improvised clothing mentioned?

 

Troxel also wrote that his 10th Cavalry troop H had ‘…the old model equipment and depended on lariats entirely for the picket line. Broken lariats were never thrown away but tied together many times for re-use or used for halter tie ropes.’

 

Any suggestions as to what did he mean exactly by 'old model equipment' - the issue prior to the current one in 1916? As I understand it from Steffen's works on the US Cavalry the Cavalry Board had approved horse equipment which bore the M1912 designation even though it did not reach the field until 1913. This was followed by the M1914 series of personal equipment. Together referred to as the M1912/14 series, it incorporated some of the M1910 infantry gear. So does Troxel mean the issue prior to M1912?

 

I explained in an Introductory post that I am a UK writer working on finishing a book on the 'Armies of the Mexican Revolution 1910-19.' All help will be acknowledged.

 

Thanks for any help anyone can give.

[Allan H.]

Moonraker,

 

Welcome to the forum. You ask an interesting question, and I will chime in. Some of what I will be writing will be so that everyone understands the situation that the 10th Cavalry was under, so that all can understand. I also want to point out before I upset someone that my use of the term "colored" is done so only under an historical context, and should in no way be construed as a personal bias.

 

The 10th Cavalry was one of the four "Colored" regiments of the US Army. They were the 24th and 25th Infantry Regiments, and the 9th and 10th Cavalry. As such, they fell to the tail end of the supply lines because the army at the time supplied the white regiments first. During this period in US history, certain units received favor over other units as well. Sometimes the favoritism was based on the reputation of the regiment, and at other times, it was based on personal relationships between various commanders. As a lot of officers of the day were the product of West Point, West Point graduates tended to give favor to their classmates and fellow graduates. Often times, white officers who were assigned to colored units received those appointments because of a personal dislike or for relative poor performance in the classroom, or in previous assignments. I have actually read accounts of officers resigning their commissions rather than having to suffer the indignity of having to serve with colored troops.

 

As the colored regiments were on the back end of the supply chain, they tended to get used equipment, obsolete equipment, and sometimes no equipment at all. General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing related stories of having to acquire everything from rations, to uniforms to equipment "by hook or by crook" as many necessary items were just not available to the colored soldier that wouldn't have been an issue if they had been white. As a result of their having to piece together uniforms and supplies from whatever sources were available, the colored units tended to look rather rag-tag and unmilitary. As a result, the perception that most white troops as well as members of the general public who encountered them seemed to perpetuate the feeling that the colored troop was a second class soldier. Obviously, historical records discount this perception as in most cases the performance of these soldiers was judged to be first class.

 

In World War II, colored troops were sent to France due to political pressure. Even though "Black Jack" was commanding the AEF in France and had served almost exclusively with colored troops in the Indian campaigns and in Cuba, he was still constrained by the biases of the day and as such had to send the colored troops to serve under French command.

 

Even in World War II, these perceptions and biases were perpetuated. Although the 92nd Infantry Division received decent reviews on their combat performance, there were still many comments as to the soldiers' lack of discipline and military bearing. The 93rd Infantry Division serving in the Pacific was so distrusted as a combat force, that the majority of the division's time was spent working in labor intensive activities such as stevedore duties, rather than service as combat forces.

 

I hope this provides some perspective.

 

Allan

[Irish Rob]

Google "Battle of Nogales" which featured the 10th. There are many contemporary images if you follow the various hyperlinks.

[12thengr]

I guess all troops became ragged after an extended tour in the boonies. These troopers; I'm guessing NG, Are from a yard long with guys that are even worse.

[BagmanL6]

Alan - Thanks for taking the time to educate. I enjoyed reading your post.

[Moonraker]

Many thanks for the all responses.

 

Alan H - Fascinating - I had actually been wondering about this very idea but have not come across any hard evidence that it was the case. But it chimes with the times as they say.

 

Irish Rob - Thanks for the photo. I had seen it before but confess I'd never studied it closely. I believe it is of the returned prisoners after Carrizal? Please correct me if I am wrong but they all seem to be wearing issue uniforms, except possibly the one bottom right who's hat and shirt look civilian? All the other hats look pretty battered but regulation? The most amazing is the one standing 3rd from right who appears to be wearing the crown complete with Montana peak but no brim!

 

12thengr - a splendid photo which repays careful study; short sleeve shirt-not issue surely? Roll neck sweater under the shirt! And hats in as many shapes as there are men! But again, are they not all (except for the ss shirt) in regulation issue? Would you be prepared to allow me to use the photo, or parts of it, as an illustration in the book, please?

 

Can anyone advise on exactly what the 'old issue equipment' would have been and how it differed from the 'new issue'?

 

Any other evidence of Colored regiments getting this shoddy treatment?

[Allan H.]

Moonraker,

 

I'll start with your question regarding "old issue equipment." This could mean two things really, first, the reissue of equipment that had been turned in as unserviceable and then had been renovated and reissued, or re-inspected and deemed to be "good enough" to reissue. When used clothing and equipment was turned in, it was sorted. Some was good enough to reissue without renovation, which was deemed to be "serviceable." Some was repaired, which usually ended up being designated as "Combat Serviceable" which meant that it was good enough to use in the field, but wouldn't pass muster on the parade ground. There was a lower level of "Combat Serviceable" called "Combat Serviceable Special Use" in which the Combat Serviceable tag actually read "For Colored Use Only." The only level lower in the pecking order was "Unserviceable." Unserviceable items were usually stripped for usable parts or material or were discarded. Clothing would have the buttons and sometimes the collars removed. Snaps, buttons, hooks, zippers, or other re-useable pieces were removed for repair of other items. Canvas, wool and other material was saved as necessary to be used for patching better conditioned items.

 

The second meaning of "old issue equipment" could mean issue of items going all of the way back to the US Civil War. Even though the war between the states was some 45 years removed from the Mexican border, some items were still deemed to be serviceable enough for limited issue to troops. Items like canteens, eating utensils, tools etc. could still be used as intended. I know that one of the issues that the colored regiments encountered during the Indian campaigns was that they would have soldiers outfitted with no less than three different calibers of ammunition in individual regiments. Imagine trying to fight a battle where you are having to carry multiple types of bullets for your troops. During the Indian Campaigns, even white soldiers had problems getting the items that they needed from the quartermaster, so those necessary items were being purchased from sutler stores by the soldiers who needed them.

 

I've attached a period photo of soldiers from either the 9th or 10th Cavalry when they were at Naco, Sonora, Mexico. I have taken the image from this website- http://sonoranjackrabbit.blogspot.com/2010/04/buffalo-soldiers-in-arizona.html You will notice that it appears that you are seeing both wool and khaki twill uniform pants. The soldier second from left appears to be wearing a private purchase sweater. All appear to be armed with the M1903 sprinfield rifle, though it was noted that the Krag rifles and carbines were still being issued to those units that did not have access to the new rifle. I would assume that the old .45-70 Trapdoor Springfield rifles and carbines would also be seen as there were still army national guard units that had them as the issued rifle going into World War I. Again, the army would be plagued by having soldiers equipped with weapons requiring .30-06, .30-40 Krag, and .45-70 caliber ammunition.

 

Allan

[P-40Warhawk]

At the time a lot of units (particularly State Guard) wore the older 1903 pattern equipment. I don't know that the 25th infantry was less supplied than any other Regular Army regiment of the time since they were issued M1903 springfields way back in 1906 which were the subject of intense scrutiny in many investigations after the men of the 25th found themselves wrongly accused of a conspiracy in the Brownsville affray/affair. If I remember correctly, about 100 men were given dishonorable discharges for their alleged conspiracy but a 1970s investigation cleared them of wrongdoing and President Nixon pardoned them. Or something like that. What no unit should have had after 1910 or so, was an unconverted (original issue) M1903 in the .30-M1903 cartridge. It's been a while since I read all the hearings and investigations of the Brownsville affair, but I think it was suggested or said that the men were taken to a rifle range early in 1906, the krag rifles exchanged for M1903s. To be fair, the issuance of the M1903 springfields was held back due to issues and concerns with the supply of ammunition and parts, so only those men in the Philippines, Alaska, and the Corps of Cadets at West Point had them. IIRC 1905/1906 was the year they started issuing them to the rest of the Army.

 

From what I have seen and read of the peacetime Army prior to 1916, they had a lot of budget problems and many items were in short supply. The M1903 springfield issuance though, IIRC, was pushed through so that all Regular Army and all National Guard troops were supposed to have the 1903 by 1907 or so. A lot of the State Guards actually still had M1873-M1888 'Trapdoor' springfields in the 1902-05 period. Krags were still the 'reserve' weapon in the event of a war.

[Moonraker]

Many thanks for these very helpful responses.

[12thengr]

Moonraker; sure, as you can see from this their are many more individuals in this photo.

[tsaguy007]

Great post, When I was much younger I got to visit Ft Davis where I bought the unit histories of these four regiments 9th 10th 24th and 25th. Fantastic battle records.