121.) The Civil War Red Legs were called " Red Legs" because they wore "bootlegs" made from untanned Indian Skins. This practice was clearly described in Lt. Barton's Journal, where he wrote about his participation in the Sullivan Campign of 1779, during the Revolutionary War. Here is a passage from his Journal, where he "describes how he 'sent out a party for some dead Indians...Towards morning found them, and skinned two of them from their hips down, for bootlegs; one pair for the Major (Sullivan), the other for myself.' " (20 min. read)

Here is the proof about these atrocities and why the "Civil War Red Legs" called themselves "Red Legs". It was because they wore untanned Indian skins on their legs, between their ankles and knees, for protection during warfare and psychological terrorism.

At the end of this article is a brief European history of the practice of using human skin for utilitarian and decorative purposes. It is understood that cultures all around the world did this. But rarely is the European use of human skin reported on the way this article exposures this practice.

(Please note that the change in font size is due to technology, and not meant to stress certain paragraphs)

This article recognizes that there are atrocities committed on both sides of every war. But both sides of these atrocities are not reported equally or fairly, when it comes to the Indians of the Americas. In fact, the atrocities committed against the Indians are purposefully denied and hidden by the empires and nations that committed these atrocities. And they continue to promote propaganda to hide it. These atrocities are still hidden to this very day. I doubt, Ken's Burns's latest, and now playing documentary on the Revolutionary War, talks about Lieutenant Barton skinning dead indians to make bootlegs, or Ben Franklin's "Scalp Hoax". 

See blog article 25. Dated May 27, 2022. "Ben Franklin's SCALP HOAX during the Revolutionary War was propaganda to create more hatred towards the Indians."

This current article is not being written to counter the 250th anniversary of Signing of the Declaration of Independence. This blog has been bringing forth information like this since 2021. And Haudenosaunee people and my family have talked about it and passed it on as generational, oral tradition, ever since it happened, centuries ago. 

Is it time for this country to finally face itself in a mindful way, about the truth of its history. The purpose of these articles are not to make adults or children feel bad about their country.

It's been said that you cannot correct and heal historical trauma if you do not know what happened. This is not only true for the victims of this historical trauma. It is also true to help correct and heal the perpetrators of the historical trauma.

The quote from this article's title, was taken from a George Washington biography titled: George Washington, The Savior of The States, by Rupert Hughes, vol. III, 1930. A book that may still only be available, in the "shadow libraries" of universities. 

See blog article 67. "Exposing the 'shadow libraries' of the Ivy League universities and colleges across the United States and how they help contribute to the 'insidious genocide' of the indigenous people. These shadow libraries contain books that the general public are forbidden from reading."

The public may still not be allowed to view this book.

Here is more of the passage from George Washington's biography, Volume III, chapter 38, page 489, describing some of the atrocities committed during the 1779 Sullivan campaign.

"At the same time Colonel Broadhead went out from Pittsburgh and marched four hundred miles in thirty-four days, having burned many towns and cut down the crops on many hundreds of acres, returning with 'the scalps we had taken, and three thousand dollars worth of plunder.'(29) He also won the thanks of Congress and the right to thank heaven. The general result of the raid, was to persuade many Indians that agriculture was a waste of time, but that scalping and the mutilation of the dead were good procedure. It was at one of these raids that a Lieutenant Barton wrote in his diary how he found two dead Indians 'and skinned two of them from their hips down, for bootlegs: one pair for the major, the other for myself.'(30) The massacre of the peaceful Moravian Indians in 1782 was a 'black and inexcusable atrocity,' which, says the biographer of the Indian chief, Brant, 'transcends any and every Indian massacre which marked that protracted and unnatural contest . . . .The white man---not the Indians---are to be branded as the savages.' "(31)

Note that this passage makes reference to Broadhead returning with scalps that he had taken. This also proves that not all Indians had cleared out and vanished before the Sullivan campaign, as the American history books claim. This disproves all the American history that says Indian women were not raped and their breasts cut off and Indian babies were grabbed by the ankles and swung around and smashed their tiny heads against tree trunks. This passage clearly disproves the propaganda that only crops and trees were destroyed during the Sullivan campaign.

How many Indian women and children have to be raped, mutilated and murdered for it to be considered reportable, in American history. 300?, 100?, 50? How many?

Read blog article 23. Dated April 6, 2022. "My mom said it is Six Nations oral tradition: During the Revolutionary War, soldiers raped Indian women, cut their breasts off and grab the Indian babies by their ankles and whip them around to smash their heads against tree trunks."

And also take note of the $3000 worth of "plunder" that Broadhead took from the Indians, that he so proudly returned with.

Was this also a major reason to clear out the Indians from New York State. Washington and Continental Congress were desperately looking for the money to fund the war.

The value of $3000 and 1779, would be conservatively valued at over $200,000 in current US funds in 2026. There was no US currency in 1779, only British, Spanish or colonial money. 

One way to calculate this is: one dollar in 1776 would be equal to a Spanish 8 Reale coin, which is .8 troy ounces of silver. Todays conservative dealer cost of silver is about $85 for a troy ounce. This was the calculation used for the $200,000 valuation figure. If you look at todays public valuation of silver, with dealer and formation costs added, it could be closer to 250,000 USD, in purchasing power today. There are many other calculations with sterling and colonial currency, with figures varying widely. The figure in today's money is presented here as one point of reference.

And what exactly is the description of this $3000 worth of plunder that Broadhead took from the Indians. What did the Haudenosaunee people have that could have been valued at over $200,000 in today's money? And what could it be, that Broadhead would have been able to carry back to the Continental Congress? 

Was it silver that the Haudenosaunee received from selling their beef and agricultural food to the highest bidder? It is known that the Continental Congress was struggling at near bank bankruptcy during the war, and feared losing the war because of this. While the English empire had plenty of silver to spend on the war. In this George Washington biography, it explains that this was one of the major reasons Washington had to clear out the Haudenosaunee from New York State. The Haudenosaunee were supplying food to the highest bidder, which was the British.

From Hughes biography on  Washington, vol. III, Chapter 38, page 484 Is the following passage:

"According to Mr. A. C. Flick:

'One aspect of this problem has been almost entirely overlooked, namely, that the country of the Six Nations was an important source of food supplies for the British army as well as the Loyalists. Tens of thousands of bushels of nourishing corn usually left a supply that could be sold at Niagara, Oswego, Montreal and Quebec and thus be made available for both the British army and navy for mush, griddle cakes, cornbread and pudding. In addition to corn, the Indian sold to the British dried vegetables, dried fruits, and dried meats. These facts were known to patriot leaders like Schuyler, Hand and Washington...' ". And "By 1779 Washington saw that the war was pretty much deadlocked..."

The $3000 of plunder that Colonel Broadhead returned with, must have surely been $3000 in silver that belong to the Haudenosaunee. And the Haudenosaunee acquired this montary capital through fair trade and capitalism, which is the hallmark of the United States's economy today.

The public's answers to these and many other questions are in the "shadow libraries" that the public is not allowed to read. The public cannot look at these books, let alone know what their titles are, so they can be found, and read them.

If you do not believe this, and this is understandable, phone or visit a university library and ask to see these books. But how can you ask for these books if you don't know the titles.

Next is a recent book titled: Union Guerrillas of Civil War Kansas •Jayhawkers and Red Legs• by Paul A Thomas and Matt M. Matthews, 2025. On the cover of this book, in the lower left corner is a photograph of Charles R. Jennison, a Kansas Red Leg. You can find a full body image of this photograph on the internet. Do an internet search using "Civil War Red Legs" as the search lead, and zoom into his legs, below his knees to his ankles. You will notice a shiny, hard covering. This is what untanned human skin can look like. 

And history books and websites describing why they were called Red Legs during the Civil War, still erroneously propagandize it. They claim it may have been red yarn they wrapped around their legs. Or another explanation was that they came into a town where the local leather shop just happened to have some dyed red sheep skin and that's what they wrapped around her legs. These explanations lack any credibility and would prove to be completely impractical during warfare. These types of explanations of why they called themselves Red Legs are such nonsense, that I am not even going to give the names of these sources from the Internet. Footnote these yourself.

Some people do not know what happens to animal skin when it is not tanned, to make it soft and supple. If the untanned skin is prepared properly, with the flesh completely removed and modeled into a cylindrical shape, it will dry out into an extremely hard material. 

Think of the rawhide dog bones you can buy in your local pet store. That's untanned animal skin. That is the type of hardness that happens to untanned animal skin. 

Only in this case, it's untanned skin from a human being---the Indian, the "Red Man". And since it was taken from the "Red Man", that's where the Civil War term "Red Legs" came from. In 1779 they were called "bootlegs". They were protective coverings for the legs, between the knee and ankle. During the Civil War they called this untanned Indian skin- "Red Legs". This is what the Europeans and Americans call Indians even to this day. The "Red Man". 

Remember the NFL Washington football team that were forced to change their name to the Commanders? Maybe sport team mascot names aren't so harmless after all.

Next recall Lieutenant Barton describing how he skinned two Indians from the hips down to make "bootlegs", one pair for Major Sullivan and one pair for himself. He skinned the Indians from the hips down, so there would be no seams from skinning the legs down. The skin that Lieutenant Barton removed from the dead Indians would be a cylinder of skin with no seams. Thereby increasing its strength because there's no concern of seams to rip open or sew up after. 

Hunters know that when you're skinning a dead animal, you skin the animals's legs by first cutting all the way around the leg and then cut and pull down the skin off of the flesh, all the way around the leg without cutting the skin vertically. This way, you end up with a tube of skin without any seams. It's the easiest way to skin a dead animal. So Lieutenant Barton skinned the dead Indians the same way. 

This is the same way a woman would remove her nylons. 

This way you don't have to sew it back together after the skin is removed, there are no seams. This tube of indian skin was then left untanned, and formed into a cylinder to harden. This cylinder of untanned human skin can then be slipped on between the ankle and knee to make the "bootlegs" or "Red Legs". 

This untanned Indian skin is to protect the lower legs during warfare as well as a psychological symbol of terrorism and the wearer's fierceness.

Interestingly, even in 2025, the "Red Legs" are written about in books with admiration, of brave men, defending the Union during the Civil War. A reasonable person would conclude that it must have been thought of the same way, during the Revolutionary War. Would the truth about all this have been already told, if the same feeling wasn't present today, in 2026.

This article is not about the atrocities that the Civil War Red Legs may have committed and some have denied.

It's about the atrocities committed, so Revolutionary War and Civil War troops could wear the skins of dead Indians to protect their legs during wartime. As well as the psychological impact of terrorism and of their fierceness.

This was intended to inflict psychological terrorism among the Indian men, women and children. 

This common practice of finding dead Indians and then skinning their legs for utilitarian use for "bootlegs or "red legs", was a sign of the fierceness to do whatever is necessary to protect The United States during the Revolutionary War and the Union during the Civil War.

Indians were a sign of fear and fierceness to the Europeans. If you wore the skin of a dead Indian, it meant you killed an Indian and skinned his dead body to wear his skin as clothing. You must be a fierce fighter, and you are to be feared by your own people, as well.

Finally I will give a short history of human skin as used by Europeans. 

The first, perhaps most widely known object is a lampshade made from human skin recovered from the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. Discovered April 21, 1945, when "a British parliamentary delegation visited the concentration camp to see the conditions in the liberated camp for themselves." Photographs of the lampshade appear to be made of untanned human skin as the pieces appear to be hard panels sewing together. You just need to Google this and you'll find all kinds of photos and information on this subject matter.

Next, from the BBC News Magazine website is the practice of books bound in human skin. One such book is on virginity rebound in the 19th century with human skin. Here is the quote underneath the photograph of that book. 

"The Wellcome Library's book on virginity-this curious little book on virginity and a female reproductive functions seems to be worthy of a binding appropriate to the subject and covered by a portion of female skin, tanned by myself with sumac." Dr. Ludovic Boland.

And from the Jim Crow Museum website. Here is a quote from that website, regarding the use of the skin of black slaves to make shoes. 

"Leather from human skin (Philadelphia News.) printed in The Mercury, Saturday, March 17, 1888

I remember that two or three years ago I incidentally referred to a prominent physician of this city wearing shoes made from the skin of negroes. He still adhered to that custom, insisting that the tanned hide of an African makes the most enduring and the most pliable leather known to man."

Finally, from AI overview internet search: The earliest scientifically confirmed items made from human skin, is by the Scythians. Dating back to over 2,400 years ago, in what is now southern Ukraine. It is the earliest scientifically confirmed items made from human skin. This claim was also made by Greek historian Herodotus in the 5th century BC.

All of these passages are easily found googling with AI. So I'm not going to include every source.

As always, these articles are written as a starting point for discussion in your circle. And what is presented here in just a few minutes of reading, is only touching lightly on each subject matter. In other words, it is just the tip of the iceberg. It's up to the reader to investigate further.

Footnotes:

The quote contained in the  blog articles title, is from Rupert Hughes' 1927, biography on George Washington, vol. II, The Rebel & The Patriot, chapter 22, page 286. And there is also reference to this quote in vol. III, chapter 38, Page 489.

Footnote (28) Appendix I, page 630. Wm. Barton's journal(Proc. New Jersey Historical Society), II, p.31

From Rupert Hughes' biography on George Washington, vol. III, The Savior of The States. Appendix I, page 753.

All footnotes are from page 489, from vol. III

(29.) Letter to the N.Y. Gazette, September 16, 1779, cited by Frank Moore, Diary of the Revolution, II, p. 219.

(30.) Proc. N.J. Hist. Soc., II, p.31.

(31.) Stone, op. cit., II, p. 217.