This sentence on the TIOH site had me intrigued
"The 10th Infantry Regiment is not authorized a Coat of Arms. As such, the 10th Infantry’s badge appears on the organizational color. On 24 Nov 1920, the Secretary of War instructed the regimental badge be placed on the regimental color above the eagle."
Why has the 10th Infantry Regiment not been granted a CoA and would it be granted one if they applyed today?
Marcus K;61623 wrote:
This sentence on the TIOH site had me intrigued
"The 10th Infantry Regiment is not authorized a Coat of Arms. As such, the 10th Infantry’s badge appears on the organizational color. On 24 Nov 1920, the Secretary of War instructed the regimental badge be placed on the regimental color above the eagle."
Why has the 10th Infantry Regiment not been granted a CoA and would it be granted one if they applyed today?
I don’t know why they weren’t given one originally. The whole business of granting regimental arms was still new in 1920, and perhaps they simply hadn’t settled on a design by the deadline for the issuance of new colors. The regiment didn’t have a particularly notable history so there wouldn’t have been much obvious to commemorate.
I suspect that, at some point, the lack of a coat of arms became a regimental distinction in itself—it made the 10th different from other units.
In any case, since the 10th is now exclusive a training organization, I don’t think it has a constituency of soldiers with long-term affiliations with it who would constitute a lobby to change the status quo.
That’s just my speculation, of course.
Well Joseph it sounds like a plausible explanation.
Thinking about this some more, I’m wondering if that Secretary of War order of 24 November 1920 was specific to the 10th Infantry at all. I know that the regulation on regimental colors and standards issued at about this time specified that regiments and battalions without an approved coat of arms would place the crest or badge above the eagle’s head on the regimental color, with the eagle’s breast feathered instead of bearing a shield with the arms on it. (Note—not, as Marcus says regarding the 13th Cavalry—a blank shield.) 24 Nov 1920 might have been the date the regulation was approved, or possibly the date of a general order preceding it.
If you look through the dates of approval of many of the arms of the older US Army regiments (i.e., those established before the end of World War I), you’ll find that they were approved at various times from 1920 to about 1924. Generally if a unit didn’t have a coat of arms approved by 1924, it seems to have simply remained without one. This would include the 10th Infantry, 24th Infantry, 10th Cavalry (arms approved in 1991—but this is a special case), and 13th Cavalry, and probably others. The regulation on using the eagle without a shield but with the crest or badge would have applied to the colors and standards of all of these.
What’s special about the 10th Cavalry is that it (like the 9th Cav and 24th and 25th Inf) was one of the all-African-American units known as Buffalo Soldiers. I don’t know if discrimination had to do with the fact that neither the 10th Cav nor the 24th Inf had coats of arms—I doubt it, since the 9th Cav had arms approved during the same period as everyone else), but the belated granting of one to the 10th Cav certainly had to do with the revival of interest in the Buffalo Soldiers, which was in full swing during General Colin Powell’s tenure as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time the arms were approved.
Interesting points Joseph. As regarding the blank Shield of the 13th Cav, it was just that the picture on the TIOH showed what appeared to be such as I mentioned it.
Marcus K;61645 wrote:
Interesting points Joseph. As regarding the blank Shield of the 13th Cav, it was just that the picture on the TIOH showed what appeared to be such as I mentioned it.
Yes, the TIOH picture is confusing if you don’t know the background. It’s not really a blank shield but rather a shield shaped cutout mostly covered with brown feathers. The feathering is the area of the eagle’s body covered by the shield in the US national arms. If you were to paste this cutout over the shield on the national arms, the result would be a complete eagle with no shield on its breast.
http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Graphics/13CavalryRegtCOA.jpg
The reason for creating a picture like this is that US Army unit colors are produced by adding the regiment-specific elements to a machine produced background. The mass-produced background has a blank shield shaped area on the eagle’s breast where the regimental coat of arms can be inserted. When embroidering colors for units without coats of arms, like the 13th Cav and 10th Infantry, the manufacturer has to embroider this pattern of feathers into the blank area. Otherwise the eagle would be shown bearing a plain blue (infantry) or yellow (cavalry) shield on its breast.
OK, thanks for the explaination.
Joseph McMillan;61633 wrote:
Thinking about this some more, I’m wondering if that Secretary of War order of 24 November 1920 was specific to the 10th Infantry at all. I know that the regulation on regimental colors and standards issued at about this time specified that regiments and battalions without an approved coat of arms would place the crest or badge above the eagle’s head on the regimental color, with the eagle’s breast feathered instead of bearing a shield with the arms on it. ... 24 Nov 1920 might have been the date the regulation was approved, or possibly the date of a general order preceding it.
Now looking at notes taken some years ago from the file copies of regulations at the Army Library, I find that it was Change to Army Regulations 105, issued 3 June 1920, that provided for the official organizational coat of arms or badge to replace the US shield on the breast of the eagle on organizational colors. (Before this time, regimental colors had the US coat of arms in full color on a background of the branch color—blue for infantry, yellow for cavalry, scarlet for engineers and artillery.)
I’m not finding any general directives on flags between that and August 1922, so either I missed something (which is possible) or perhaps the November 1920 order actually was specific to the 10th Infantry. A potential research project for someone who is able to visit TIOH some time.
