Putting yourself out on the internet comes with its drawbacks, but also gives you a sense of where people are and what they value, and largely the videos and blog posts are very well received. But for some, it's an opportunity to sort of politely and sometimes not so politely criticize and dismiss the notions of authenticity this blog promotes in favor of a more "common sense" approach suggesting that documentation is all well and good, but is found wanting once you get out and start doing stuff in the woods. Realizing that this sort of stuff just comes with the territory of being on the internet, I try to use these opportunities to simply let the historical record speak for itself and try to prove on some practical level that the things our forefathers wrote down and described actually work.
The "common sense" approach suggests that in the backcountry, ie Indian country, nobody would have been caught dead wearing anything bright or colorful because that would have made you stick out like a sore thumb and would have instantly gotten you killed. And to be sure, we have many references to dark colored clothing. Daniel Boone is described by a George Christian as having a black hunting shirt made of deerskin. Another description from McWorter described someone whose clothing was colored in the ooze made from the bark of the chestnut tree. So we have plenty of documentation for dark clothing, albeit where many of those folks who embrace that image of the frontier and adopt that manner of dress go wrong today is in the style and patterning. But we'll put a pin in that for now.
Our concern today is brightly colored clothing existing in the backcountry in the 18th century.
The first reference that comes to mind for me is Col Lewis, killed at the Battle of Point Pleasant in 1774. He was killed wearing a scarlet waistcoat and in one account is said to have made a very "visible target." Now, the common sense crowd reading this want to celebrate and send up a cheer and say "See, that is what we're talking about. That would get you killed." But, what this proves is that someone in the 18th century did in fact wear a bright colored coat in the woods against Native Americans in battle. I would suggest that what got him killed was that he was clearly important, not that he was sporting a bright color. But, let's find other examples that don't end in the person getting killed.
"There whole dress is very singular, and not very materially different from that of the Indians; being a hunting shirt, somewhat resembling a waggoner’s frock, ornamented with a great many fringes, tied around the middle with a broad belt, much decorated also…Their hunting or rifle shirts, they have also died in variety of colors, some YELLOW, others RED, some brown, and many wear them quite WHITE." (Smyth 179-180)
In the late 1770s, Benjamin Allen is captured by Natives and describes being given some clothing during his captivity.
“They then brought me two calico hunting shirts, sort of RED…”
When he returned from captivity he describes clothing he received from a Col Baker.
"He gave me a BLUE hunting shirt and a new hat."
Another description describes the "eccentric dress" of a "BLUE hunting shirt, trimmed with RED"
At the battle of Blue Licks, the entire company from Lexington were clad in red leggings.
"...on the top of the hill, I fell in with a man who had RED leggings on, and I was told only the company from Lexington had on such leggings.” -Jacob Stevens
So here are just a handful of many examples of color on the frontier. But let's throw another element in here that might make us rethink the idea that staying hidden and not standing out was foremost on the mind of anyone living or working in the woods. Native Americans are described over and over as painting themselves RED. Yes, the very one that would supposedly kill you instantly for wearing bright colors were also brightly colored.
"The party appeared next day painted RED and black, their heads covered all over with swan-down, and a tuft of long WHITE feathers fixt to the crown of their heads." -James Adair
The head, neck and breast, are painted with VERMILLION" - William Bartram
“They were naked and painted RED and black, making a very frightful appearance” - John Rutherford “a journal of an Indian captivity during Pontiac’s rebellion in the year 1763
“The figure of the combatants all besmeared with RED and black paint, and covered with the blood of the slain, . . . “ -Jonathan Carver “travels
 |
| This shows a variety of colors, RED leggings and breechclout as well as yellow face paint and RED plumes. |
On a practical note, it has been pointed out to me that in color science as explained in art school we're taught that red and green are very similar on the light spectrum. And I can tell you, having done immersion events where I have faced natives in full red paint in the woods, they blend in surprisingly well and disappear in heavy foliage very quickly.
Dark colors are great in the woods and can help you blend in. There is no doubt of that. Nobody would ever try to suggest differently. But, when we are trying to recreate the past, the important thing to do is what THEY did. Certainly, if your personal preference is dark colors, by all means, we have documentation for that. But don't look at the guy in his blue hunting shirt and red leggings and say "they would have NEVER worn something that bright in the woods cause that would have gotten you killed," because we have documentation for that too.
I want to thank Matthew Fennewald and Will Manire for helping me with the native quotations.
