Indian wars haversacks

[WalkaHeap1989]

We all know the old saying that “an army marches on its stomach”, and we all know that soldiers have always had to contrive a way to make sure rations were within reasonable reach should they be unable to get to the nearest kitchen, so the answer to this since time immemorial has been the haversack, in one form or another. Here’s three examples of Indian war haversacks in chronological order of issue. This post is in no way a complete study, but a very quick generalization for those that might have something similar, and aren’t sure of what exactly they have. 

 

The civil war showed serious shortfalls with the army’s standard issue 1851 haversack, as on a large scale, with large bodies of men moving constantly, the issued rations were all mixed together in the one large bag of the haversack, and would cross contaminate one another, and left a mess that was nearly impossible to clean. 

 

The U.S. army was forward thinking enough that in the 1870s they looked for ways to resolve this issue, and starting in 1872, they first came up with the idea to separate the meat ration from everything else, and to make several compartments in the haversack in an attempt to keep ration components separate. The 1872 haversack and meat can were a novel idea, but still had serious shortfalls. The haversack had a two piece sling, but no true efficient way to adjust it. It fell to the soldiers to stitch together, or pin the sling together, one way was by using an 1855 knapsack j hook passed through two sewn grommets. The meat can itself was placed in a pouch on the front of the haversack, still under the flap. The meat can didn’t do much else, though supposedly in a pinch it could be used to boil water/coffee, and the top could serve as a cup. If this was ever actually done, I have my doubts. The 1872 haversack was also made entirely of linen, a great material for a lot of things, but very light, weak, and the flap of the haversack was only one layer, so probably didn’t do much to keep out rain. 

 

In 1874, the army tried again. This time, they did a much better job with the meat can, whose lineage can be seen still today with the U.S. army issue mess kit. Split in two halves, one acting as the fry pan/serving dish, the other as a plate, with a hinged handle to hold it all together. The haversack still had three compartments: one for the meat can, one and then two inside the main bag to keep coffee, sugar, and hardtack away from each other. The sling had a wonderful buckle sewn on it this time that made for easy adjustment to the soldiers satisfaction. There were small pockets sewn to the gusset on the inside that the soldiers issued fork and mess knife could be slid into, and leather sheaths were furnished to keep the sharp points from cutting through the bag. The flap on the 1874 was tarred/rubberized, definitely an improvement on the 1872. There were still shortfalls, however. The meat can pouch was small and hard to button closed, the leather binding on the outer flap became brittle and broke off after repeated washing, as did the tar/rubberized flap. The leather closure straps likewise would become brittle and fall apart after washing as well. 

 

The army’s final answer, which stayed in one form or another for nearly 30 years, was the 1878 haversack. Made completely of canvas, with a removable leather sling which with the help of j hooks attached to brass d rings on the backside of the haversack, the haversack also had a pouch large enough for the meat can actually fit into, side pockets for the issue fork and knife, two large compartments in the main bag, and a double layered flap to keep everything dry in the rain. There’s very little to complain about with this new haversack, except maybe that the leather sling was large and when weighed down by a full haversack would put strain and cut into the soldiers shoulder. The style of haversack remained, as I say, for nearly 30 years, being replaced in 1898 with a larger bag, with more improvements, but the idea was still there, continuing to be improved right up to 1910. 

[CAC1901]

I love these things. They tend to be underrated and inexpensive, and provide an educational lesson on how the army used, re-purposed, and re-used older equipment. I have a number of the early types modified to the1878 pattern. The flap was replaced with the canvas duck and the D rings applied to the back. Some left the Palmer brace system leather chapes intact. The more interesting part are the flap stencils. One I regret selling was an 1874/1878 upgraded type marked to an Aero Squadron in WW1.   

[WalkaHeap1989]

7 hours ago, CAC1901 said:

I love these things. They tend to be underrated and inexpensive, and provide an educational lesson on how the army used, re-purposed, and re-used older equipment. I have a number of the early types modified to the1878 pattern. The flap was replaced with the canvas duck and the D rings applied to the back. Some left the Palmer brace system leather chapes intact. The more interesting part are the flap stencils. One I regret selling was an 1874/1878 upgraded type marked to an Aero Squadron in WW1.   

Would love to see some of your collection, sir!

[Fred Ganske]

I have a canvas haversack that resembles the 1874 with leather binding on a plain (untarred) canvas flap and the small square pocket for the 1872 meat can.  I don't have a photo handy but will try to post one soon.

 

Additionally, I'm confused or perhaps dissatisfied with collector identification of meat cans.  Your photo includes an elliptical first pattern 1874 meat can (jealous).  The second meat can would be a second pattern meat can with a first pattern lid?  The third meat can is often referred to as a second pattern 1874 by virtue of the solid handle and offset pull ring.  The I have an elliptical meat can stamped from the same dies as the first pattern 1874 with the solid handle and offset pull ring.  I think my meat can would be a type two or second pattern 1874 and the much more common meat can (third in your photo) with rounded contours and being oval rather than elliptical in plan view would not be an 1874 model at all.  I have seen them referred to as an 1885 pattern.  Is the third meat can properly referred to as a model 1885?  Thanks

[WalkaHeap1989]

@Fred Ganskecant wait to see the haversack you mentioned. That sounds interesting.  As far as the meat cans go, the way I’ve understood it(and my knowledge is based off McChristian’s reference books) first pattern has slotted handle, center pull ring, second pattern has solid cast handle with center pull ring, and the third pattern has the solid cast handle with an offset pull ring. I THINK I know what you’re talking about as far as the fourth iteration, or “1885 pattern”. Is the top pan nearly flat, similar to the 1910 meat can? If so, I’ve not seen this referenced anywhere, but I personally call it a fourth pattern 1874, or model 1900 perhaps, because in that 1900-1903 area we get updated utensils and cup also. When I have a moment I can get my meat cans and make a post about them as well.