Fabric pants

[isaac]

To the folks that do RMFT stuff... Looking at photos of you all, I see almost entirely hide trousers and pantaloons. Do many modern reenactors wear fabric trousers/pantaloons in their mountaineer impressions?

I see a lot of fabric trousers and pantaloons mentioned in accounts and am wondering about this. Is our excitement and romanticism creating a fear of wearing fabric, even though it is correct?

Even though skintight hide pantaloons are rock-star cool, the chance of me getting that much hide tanned up is slim and I can easily stitch up fabric pantaloons that would be correct for most of what I do and double for RMFT if I ever get west. Many accounts show cassinette and satinette. The various jean and VA cloth that is out there currently may work well to repro some of these. Anyway, I am seriously thinking about this!

IW

[Leifer]

I think I got this from Rod at some point, but this may help:

"25 pairs Duck Trousers, Rocky Mountain Outfit, Fontenelle, Fitzpatrick & Co., 1837"

Now, what they were doing with these...I suppose could be debated...but they were there.

Leifer

[isaac]

Yup... duck (summer and Russia), sheeting, "cloth," corduroy, satinette, cassinette, and blanket are seen in documents regarding the western fur trade in regards to both trousers and pantaloons. It is just interesting that you do not see more of this.

IW

[Chuck Burrows]

IMO the reason for the plethora of hide pants today anyway is partly(mostly?) due to A. J. Miller's prints that are used so widely as a reference for the 1830's which seems to be the most popular time period portrayed, but also most period documents/descriptions tend to mention hide clothes when describing the mountaineers (most are late descriptions - circa late 1830's thru the 1850's). Also weather and wear/cost factor are a consideration out here in the high dry west - a big factor is wind and cloth just does not quite cut it as good as hide. Then you've got lots of plants with stickers, etc., that will hang on cloth, but not so easily on hide. Of course where in the west is also a factor - the conditions/problems one experiences in the northern and farther south high country forests (tree line lowers as you go north) are not the same as the foot hills (where much if not most of the trapping took place) which can often be covered with pinyon, juniper, sage, prickly pear, etc., and then you have the open plains. Here in the SW you also have much more sticker bearing plants including cacti such as cholla (the infamous "jumping" cactus) - this may be why the New Mexican Colonists used a fair amount of hide clothing. As for the wear cost factor, Charles Larpenteur mentioned he bought his hide clothes at least in part, since they would/should last him his 18 month original contract while being in the field - he wound up becoming a clerk instead and his clothing needs changed. All of my comments are in part based on personal experience - cloth just does not hold up as well as hide at least in the Rocky Mtn and Great Basin country I've had experience with over the last 50 years here in the west.
Another factor when reading the trade lists is trying to define what was intended for the trading post "bound" workers (by the 1830's there were more posts in the west than many realize, in part due to the emphasis on the rendezvous by modern students), those working in the field, and the Indians - just because cloth clothing was on a list, IMO one needs to determine who (whenever possible) bought the goods and where/how it was to be used.
Then there is also the factor of "style" - cool was even a factor back when - Kurz in his circa 1850 journal noted that when heading to St Louis, many of the AFC engages working at the Upper Missouri, post would stop off at FT Pierre, SD while going down river and get themselves a suit of mountaineers clothes - most likely leather pants of some style and a leather coat. Style may also have affected the pre-1840's mountaineers choice of clothing material.

Now would it be wrong to wear cloth pants when doing a field worker of one type or another? IMO nope - IIRC Osborne Russell mentions wearing cloth pants while in the field and there are purchases on the Ft Hall books by trappers, including Carson who purchased cloth pants in the post 1834 era. Also, again, IMO especially if portraying the early years (pre-1814) of the RMFT, cloth pants were probably a more likely item to be seen.

[Rod]

Cloth trowsers are what I've worn for quite a number of years. I really should make up a pair of hide leggins, but haven't done it yet. I wear a cotton pair in summer, and a wool pair in winter, along with wool leggins in winter, as well. I think both cloth and hide would be equally appropriate, there are certainly enough references to both.

Rod

[isaac]

Feb 7, 2014 15:19:31 GMT -7 Chuck Burrows said:

IMO the reason for the plethora of hide pants today anyway is partly(mostly?) due to A. J. Miller's prints that are used so widely as a reference for the 1830's which seems to be the most popular time period portrayed, but also most period documents/

I wonder if the reason that even Miller showed so many hide pants was because of when he was travelling and the fact that they were all horse bound. Had he been there while they were actually trapping and in and out of the water, perhaps he would have seen more wool, cassinette, satinette, etc.

Something I think is also the case is the romanticization of the hide clad woodsman that certainly existed then too (why Miller likely showed so much and Kurz HAD to have an outfit of it). I think the fact they were selling hide clothing, even in St, Louis, means that anyone could have had it and it was not something that differentiated greenhorn from experienced trapper; especially because you also see old hands buying cloth clothing as well.

To me, I think this was partly dependant on season, weather, location, and what you were doing. Hide sure does stop the wind (even HBC men ON THE BAY were wearing hide breeches with flannel drawers for this reason) and is tough stuff, but it has disadvantages too... wading in and out of beaver ponds, creeks, and rivers for example.

Anyway, fun stuff to think about and certainly this is one of those topics that borders on exciting romantic notions, reality, and modern perceptions. I have plenty of proof of hide trousers even as early as 1780-90s and likely will make a pair eventually, but I think I will get more use of some cassinette pantaloons and will likely make a pair of those first. With a little of the extra hide I have, once I get it smoked, I may make a waistcoat/vest of it. Mixing things up a bit...

Isaac

[char]

Isaac,

I've come to pretty much the same conclusion as you have concerning fabric vs. hide for garments. But there is one question I've been nervous to discuss concerning ready made leather clothing. What kind of tanning method was used?

The two options that I find most probable are either braintan or what you in America call German tan (fish oil tan). Although the commercial German tan process has changed over the centuries it still results in a fish oil tanned garment leather more or less identical to the type of leather used for civilian and military clothing throughout Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. And it seems as it was used for tailor made hide items such as breeches in America as well (http://www.rockymountainoutfit.com/reviews/patterns/kk-4303/).

An interesting example of fish oil tanned leather with some kind of RMFT provenance can be found in the Titian Ramsay Peale coat from 1819-1820 (http://nafsmokesignals.tripod.com/2011/may-jun11_issue/smokesignalpg2.htm) where the body is made from it while the arms are made from braintan.

Other commercial made hide clothing still existing in museums appear from the look to be made from German tan as well.

Leather breeches 1800-1810

Leather Breeches 2 1800-1810

Leather breeches 3 1807-1817

I'm not doubting that field made or Indian made garments would have been made from braintan. All I'm saying is that German tan is probably an authentic option if you want to recreate the ready made/store bought versions.

What do you all think?

/Char

[isaac]

I think you have it there Char! I think the vast majority of premade (European made or EASTERN American made items) were fish oil. I have been collecting images of breeches, pantaloons, and trousers of these and this is definitely the case. BTW, here is a nice pair of TROUSERS from the 1790s that are leather... www.liveauctioneers.com/item/21591952_british-consuls-leather-breeches-boston-1790

As an additional thought, there are some accounts of Indian tanned leather being used to make professionally made hide garments as well (although not as common), and I wonder how often some of the garments supplied at posts and forts (especially in the further interior forts/posts) would have been Indian tanned and even made by Indian women.

Finally, something else that makes me REALLY wonder is what the leather pantaloons being supplied in St. Louis and other forts/posts looked like. Were these more like the outer garment item that we see worn for riding (such as those you linked above) or are some undergarments being worn for protection from chafing on horseback and to be protection from the wind. There are some accounts that mention wearing wool over the hide. This would fit perfectly with these pantaloons (obviously undergarments) from the Long Expedition...

[char]

I guess Ft. Hall would count as an interior post. According to Clay Landry's chapter "The History & Trade Ledgers of Fort Hall, 1834-1837" in BoB VIII they sold a bunch of ready made leather garments, such as pantaloons and hunting shirts. The interesting thing discussing tanning options is that some items were noted as "deer skin pants","elk-skin trousers" and "Leather hunting shirts" while one purchase was made for "Indian leather pantaloons". (pg 185) This neither proofs or excludes the use of German tan as an option, but rather proofs that some ready made clothing was made from braintan. But I suppose the usage of the animal source in the notes, such as elk and deer rather speaks for braintan as I think it would be hard to determine the animal source based on just a finished garment or a piece of hide if German tanned.

About Indian tailors; the Ft. Hall records also mentions payment to squaws or rather their husbands for tailor duties. To quote Clay Landry "The ledgers also indicate quite a lot of clothing being made by Indian women."(pg.189)

Another interesting note from good old Charles Larpenteur is; "Here I am, a regular carter of Fort William, dressed in cowskin pants, cowskin coat, buckskin shirt, wolfskin cap, red flannel undershirt, and a blue check shirt over that…” (http://user.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/html/larpenteur/index.html)

The use of the word "cow" is what I'm wondering about. If he means buffalo cow, most other sources just say "buffalo", and not "buffalo cow" (Russel comes to mind). I just wonder what kind of cow he was talking about? Braintan buffalo cow or German tan domestic? But if I remember it right his journal is a translation from French so that might also be the answer.

Oh...and here's another pare of buckskin breeches dated to the 18th century (Met museum).


Char

[isaac]

Not much to add but here is some cool earlier fur trade and Great Lakes based stuff. I have found more on this since, but have not wrote any formal articles on it yet.

frenchinwisconsin.com/2011/10/leather-trousers/


frenchinwisconsin.com/2011/11/leather-trousers-pt-ii/

[marvin]

Washington Irving has a quote about ill fitting leather coats and leggings in a Tour of the Prairies...fall 1832 . I'll dig it up this weekend if I get a minute.

[Old Solitair]

I think we all started or think of that cool buckskin mountain man look. But in reality buckskin works so much better out here in the west. I have all the same reasons and experience that Chuck mentioned. Yes they do suck when wet, but oh well, they will dry. They just hold up so much better when used, they will rot in time. I have been wearing breeches & leggings for the past 10 or so years. I really like them. You can take them off and dry them after trapping, and put on another pair or wool. I also have worsted pair of pantaloons, sometimes their nice to wear, but just don't have that feel out on the trails. This maybe is something they looked for when they came to a fort or rendezvous, just to get out of skins for a while??

I have microfilm copies of the Fort Hall 1835 ledgers and noticed many sales of "Dressed elk" or "Dressed deer skins" or even "buckskin". More so than I seen pantaloons. At the same time the same persons bought ready made cloth shirts and moc's. I will have to dig more into this, it has me thinking more, that could hurt.

Lewis Garrard in "Wah-to-yah" mentions taking his pantaloons apart to use as a pattern to make his buckskin pants.

YMHOS

Bill

[Dan'l Hickham]

This is a very informative post - I have in the past made mocs and such out of german tanned hides - and used it for other stuff too - in the ledgers of the posts do you all think the the leather breeches and deer skin hunting shirts were fish oil tanned? This would be a great thing since brain tanning is tough to do and get the consistant thickness you see on the german tan offered commercially

[Old Solitair]

Out on the western frontier I would think this would be the case. There was an almost endless supply of hides coming in to be traded by the Indians to the forts. There are many journal entries of having the natives made clothing for the trappers as well as they new how to dress hides the native way. Brian tanning is not hard to do, just takes time and elbow grease.  Brain tanned hides are beautiful. You mention todays commercial German tan hides consistent thickness, most all mass produced hides are ran through what is no different than a plainer.
Check out this article on our website that talks about this subject a little more
rockymountainoutfit.com/articles/dressed-for-success/

YMHOS
Bill

[char]

Dan'l,

I think some of the eastern made hide garments sold in St. Louis for example might have been made from fish oil tan as it was a Euro; and as it seems also a Euro-American tradition. But I still believe the vast majority of hide clothing worn by trappers in the mountains were made from braintan. Like Bill says there was a more or less endless supply of braintan coming in from the natives who sometimes acted tailors and sometimes traded hides directly to the trappers, and they also traded tanned hides to the forts where some made use of them making garments for sale, and like the fine article Bill links to says; the mountaineers occasionally tanned themselves and stitched their own clothing in the field.

So fish-oil was likely there in a few eastern made garments while braintan was definitely there in abundance.

/Char