Examples of period soldiers choosing to sleep alone

[hanktrent]

I wrote, up above in the thread:
Anyone have examples of period soldiers choosing to sleep alone, with just their own shelter half, in cold or rainy weather, when others were available to share things with? Or carrying two shelter halves so they could avoid needing to partner with another to make a full tent? How common was it? What kind of man would choose it?

I'm seriously curious about that. It's easy to document men sleeping in the same bed or small tent in military or civilian life, but has anyone tried to document a prejudice against it, in the period? I wonder when and why society changed?

Me, I look at spooning as one of those things that we're uncomfortable with today, but that you just have to get used to when portraying the 1860s, like acting racist, being sexist, and wearing slick-soled shoes. Besides, it's a heck of a lot warmer.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[tompritchett]

I pulled Hank's post out of the "What do you do" thread in order to give it more visibility and a chance to develop its own discussions.

[sbl]

It only bothered me twice. Once on a rainy night when my tent mate had a few drinks and hogged the whole tent. The other was a guy who slept so soundly I thought the had died in the night.

[sbl]

Anthony Comstock

He was born in New Canaan, Connecticut. As a young man, he enlisted and fought for the Union in the American Civil War from 1863 to 1865 in Company H, 17th Connecticut Infantry. He served without incident, but objected to the profanity used by his fellow soldiers. Afterward he became an active worker in the Young Men's Christian Association in New York City.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Comstock


Anthony Comstock: Roundsman of the Lord

http://www.nndb.com/people/230/000117876/

Book by Heywood Broun, Margaret Leech; Boni, 1927. 285 pgs.

CHAPTER IV

"SHOULD I FALL"

TRUMBULL, admits that Comstock was not always popu*
lar with his fellows in the Federal army. He explains that
whisky was supplied to all the men as part of their regular
ration and that there was some irritation over the fact that
Anthony, after accepting his share, would then pour it on
the ground. He refused to give to others what he would
not use himself.

No mention is made of any such incident in the Civil War
diary which Comstock kept in 1864, but he frequently refers
to squabbles with his comrades. Very often he is "twitted."

Jan 2o -- Have been twitted several times today about being
a Christian. "Would that I were a better one."

March 9 -- Heard some persons speaking against me. Do
not know the reason. Tried hard to do my duty. Will not
join with them in sin and wickedness; though loose all of
their friendship. For Jesus is more precious than all the world.
This I fear is the reason of their hatred or jealousy.

But sometimes hostility was expressed even by fellow
church members.

Dec. 15 -- Were pained to see Brother W. under Satan's
power. Called me a liar, but was excited. Doubtless he
repents ere this. Pray earnestly for him this morning in Vestry
room at church.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Well, there's spooning and there's spooning. Billings states "It was only rarely a soldier was met with who was so crooked a stick no one would chum with him..." and the relationship he describes between the "Marblehead man" and his young "chicken" is one we would not ordinarily expect outside of the prison system (pp. 52-53).

On the other hand, the Charles Reed illustration of four men spooning in an A tent (p. 49) shows each decorously curled up in their own blanket.

The very design of a Sibley, with the men radiating from the central pole like spokes on a wheel, militates against spooning though not against closeness.

But we will probably never know how close the norm was. Sharing beds would seem common enough; sharing blankets perhaps less so. William Ray's description of the use of hammocks seems to indicate that -- no surprise -- spooning wasn't a priority in warm weather.

The fact that officers had their own individual shelter tents presupposes that they don't ordinarily share their beds. Theodore Ayrault Dodge and Henry Hitchcock both write lovingly of their multiple blankets and cots, underscoring the absence of bed mates. On the other hand, Lincoln's history of the 34th Mass., and probably other works, has two or even three officers sharing a dog tent on campaign in the Valley in '64.

I think the average reenactor who shares a dog tent but not blankets, probably comes close to the average civil war soldier, at least in summer.

As for the other "norms" of 19th century life, slick soles would seem to be a matter of relative technology. "Racism" and "sexism" aren't givens at all, but are contemporary shorthand for a whole complex of sometimes pretty sophisticated attitudes. One good example seems provided by the work of the 17th century playwright Aphra Behn, who judged men and women not by the color of their skin but the blueness of their blood ("Oronooko" and "The Widow Ranter"). Thomas Wentworth Higginson provides an example of someone who, while race-conscious, wasn't "racist" in the sense that we seem to mean it today.

I try not to let my knowledge of how life then differed from ours today lead me into creating my own stereotypes about the past, especially since I'm still learning about it.

[Robert A Mosher]

Well, there's spooning and there's spooning. Billings states "It was only rarely a soldier was met with who was so crooked a stick no one would chum with him..." and the relationship he describes between the "Marblehead man" and his young "chicken" is one we would not ordinarily expect outside of the prison system (pp. 52-53).

On the other hand, the Charles Reed illustration of four men spooning in an A tent (p. 49) shows each decorously curled up in their own blanket.

The very design of a Sibley, with the men radiating from the central pole like spokes on a wheel, militates against spooning though not against closeness.



Your comment about the use of individual blankets when spooning reminds of the reportedly common practice in the colonial period of bundling, which apparently was considered secure enough to permit young ladies and young men to share a bed even before marriage. Each one was snugly wrapped up in their own blanket and sometimes a further barrier of a rolled up blanket or even a plank was placed between them to mark the dividing line on the bed. Being something I came across exclusively in New England, it would suggest a general attitude tolerant of sharing beds under certain circumstances.

Robert A. Mosher

[FloridaConfederate]

Two hours later when the fires had burned to smoldering embers dark forms glided noiselessly about among the prostrate soldiers of the 200th. Here an overcoat was adroitly prigged from under the head of a sleeper and there a blanket was gently drawn from the forms it covered. The men generally slept by twos spreading one blanket upon the ground and the other over them. Fortunate was he who had no pard and wrapped himself in his solitary blanket lying upon part of it and covering himself with the rest. Corporal Si Klegg and His "pard" How They Lived and Talked, and what They Did and Suffered, While Fighting for the Flag By Wilbur F. Hinman p.175

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[FloridaConfederate]

My scanner went TU or I'd post it

Page 49 Hard Tack and Coffee has the illustration Spooning Together
which depicts six Federal soldiers in an A-Frame spooned... each individually wrapped in his own blanket.

[hanktrent]

But we will probably never know how close the norm was. Sharing beds would seem common enough; sharing blankets perhaps less so. William Ray's description of the use of hammocks seems to indicate that -- no surprise -- spooning wasn't a priority in warm weather.

I should clarify that I'm only talking about sharing blankets or sleeping close together out of necessity, which would generally be cold weather or rain, obviously not summer or when plenty of warmth or shelter was available.

I expect there were some "couples" who were doing it for companionship or other reasons, but in general, it seems to be a practical thing in the period, as simple as splitting up mess gear to be carried. The ideal would be to haul it in the wagon, but if that's not available, you just share the burden. Same way, the ideal would be to have a tent and blankets for everyone, but if that's not available...

So what I'm trying to get at is not the mindset "I wish I had a large enough tent/cot/bed/blanket/house so I didn't have to share it." From time immemorial, people have wished they had more luxuries.

I'm trying to get at period examples of the mindset: "I don't care how cold or wet I am, I'm not sleeping with another man, cause that's just gross." That's so common in modern life that we've already seen a couple examples posted on the other thread. But I'm curious how common it was in the period and what sort of man might have felt that way.

"Racism" and "sexism" aren't givens at all, but are contemporary shorthand for a whole complex of sometimes pretty sophisticated attitudes.

I think you're reading way too much into one little throw-away line. I meant it as a simple analogy about portraying common things: It took the same effort for me to feel comfortable calling adult male African-Americans "boy," as it did to sleep with another man when it was cold. I'd never done either one, or known anyone who did, until I began reenacting.

Just as we can discuss men in the period who made it a point not to call African-Americans "boy," we can discuss men who were squeamish about sleeping with other men regardless of cold or wet. In fact, the whole point of this thread is to learn more about the latter.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Artyman]

In Nam we paired off with a "hooch partner" to button ponchos into a tent, dig a two man fox hole, dig a sleeping position, be on guard while the other slept, have someone to talk to and handle the fear better, to reduce the loneliness, etc, and to just plain survive. I'm sure it was true then too.

My hooch partner was "Weasle". His real name was Clarence Templeton. He was killed about ten feet from me when I lost my arm. Look him up on the "Wall" listings. April 15, 1970.

A loner dies alone.

Harry

[bob 125th nysvi]

mores in this conversation.

While homosexuality certainly did exist in 18th Century America it certainly wasn't talked about and to the vast majority of men it would not occur that their 'pard' might be interested in them that way.

The other issue is that people did not appear in public without their clothes on. That is how some women managed to masquerade as men.

So "spooning" wasn't going to be in your drawers or anything like that and probably only occurred when you were cold. So I'm sure somemen sleep in pairs (or more) and some slept alone based on preference.

Take me for example. I have sleep apnea and snore quite loudly. It would be impossible for someone to 'spoon' with me and get a decent night's sleep. In all likelyihood I'd be sleeping alone no matter what my preferences would be.

[Poor Private]

It's more than morals that I am concerned about with sleeping with an unknown or little known feller. There is such things as lice,and other contact conmunicable diseases, or varmints. I sure don't need them in my kit or on my body. Not only that there is the whole smoker issue also. I am ex-smoker, and I now know how smoking odors can infest your clothes and equiment. Ever get in a car that was just smoked in? Yes Yes i know there is camp fire smoke, but that has a different smell to it.

[FloridaConfederate]

> 32 degrees with just a blanket / ground cloth and nonsense about catching communicable diseases from your pard flies right out the wind'er.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Fl

[hanktrent]

It's more than morals that I am concerned about with sleeping with an unknown or little known feller. There is such things as lice,and other contact conmunicable diseases, or varmints. I sure don't need them in my kit or on my body. Not only that there is the whole smoker issue also. I am ex-smoker, and I now know how smoking odors can infest your clothes and equiment. Ever get in a car that was just smoked in? Yes Yes i know there is camp fire smoke, but that has a different smell to it.

So... any examples of period soldiers who felt that way? I think there's no doubt that plenty of modern reenactors are squeamish about sleeping near others for any number of reasons.

Ironically, the fear of contracting lice and diseases should have been greater in the period than today, when those things really were a significant problem for unvaccinated or unimmune men living in close quarters for months in unsanitary conditions.

As Chris notes, there were trade-offs, but choosing between shivering all night or smelling lingering pipesmoke is a pretty easy decision for me, even though I hate the smell of tobacco in the modern world. In the period, the stakes were even higher--measles, or hypothermia?

There was period health advice about choosing sleeping companions wisely, especially for children, like for example here (http://books.google.com/books?pg=RA1-PA220&dq=%22sleep+with%22+healthy+date:0-1870&lr=&id=i_gEAAAAQAAJ&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&output=html), but I'm wondering if there are examples of soldiers who were that fastidious, and did it last after a few months on campaign?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[jthlmnn]

Originally Posted by hanktrent
Anyone have examples of period soldiers choosing to sleep alone, with just their own shelter half, in cold or rainy weather, when others were available to share things with? Or carrying two shelter halves so they could avoid needing to partner with another to make a full tent? How common was it? What kind of man would choose it? (emphases mine)

This question strikes me as pretty direct and simple. Yet most of the responses do not address the question that was posed. Mr. Rideout's example does not address why a certain individual might be alone, only that such an individual would be "fortunate", in the eyes of the author. Pvt. Schnapps' example deals with an individual who might be ostracized, not one who has chosen to be alone. What an individual would or would not do now is irrelevant. Opinions are irrelevant. Documentation is relevant. Lack of documentation would be relevant only if one has covered a great deal of first hand material and the practice of deliberately choosing solitary accomodations is not mentioned. Because the question intrigues me, as well, I would ask that we stick to the question as it is posed and not waste bytes.

[Artyman]

I believe the original question was addressed, if somewhat indirectly. In any group of 100 men (or more) you will find the bell shaped curve of individual personalities. The military is not set up (never has been) to deal compasionately with with the extremes.

There is an interesting Hermann Melville book called "White Jacket". It's about Melvilles own experiance on an American Navy frigate. He tells the story in short observations about navy life. He mentions that there were strange loner men who stayed aloof and even hid out in the far hidden places in the ship. Problem for them was that rations were issued to "messes". If you wanted to eat you had to cooperate with a mess. Even Melville says he had to shop around for a mess that he got along with.

You don't have to be a fag, or be dirty, or mean, or sick, or etc to find out that not everyone likes you. Outsiders seek what they seek, but in the bigger view of an organized military, it is a survival thing. Everyone conforms or the system shuts them out.

We taught a few how to get along in the barricks with the old fashioned "GI Shower" technique. The next morning the DI would notice the guy brused and bloody at formation. I remember one such fellow who we had to convince to take a real shower (he smelled!). When asked by the DI the next morning "what happened to you?" The answer was "I fell out of bed! Drill Seargeant!". He had learned. He had learned to shower after all. Conformity ain't all bad.

There was one who wound up in the stockade too. He couldn't quit stealing from our lockers and eventually got caught.

Harry

[FloridaConfederate]

(emphases mine)

This question strikes me as pretty direct and simple. Yet most of the responses do not address the question that was posed. Mr. Rideout's example does not address why a certain individual might be alone, only that such an individual would be "fortunate", in the eyes of the author. Pvt. Schnapps' example deals with an individual who might be ostracized, not one who has chosen to be alone. What an individual would or would not do now is irrelevant. Opinions are irrelevant. Documentation is relevant. Lack of documentation would be relevant only if one has covered a great deal of first hand material and the practice of deliberately choosing solitary accomodations is not mentioned. Because the question intrigues me, as well, I would ask that we stick to the question as it is posed and not waste bytes.


[ThurstonHowell,III-Voice] Yes. how dreadful. Forgive us for wasting bytes with direct quotes about spooning from two of the most known period sources. Let us get out of the way of your most excellent use of bytes. Carry on. Chap. [/ThustonHowell,III-Voice]

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[hanktrent]

I believe the original question was addressed, if somewhat indirectly. In any group of 100 men (or more) you will find the bell shaped curve of individual personalities. The military is not set up (never has been) to deal compasionately with with the extremes.

That's certainly true. But do most of us agree that it seems the center of the bell-shaped curve has shifted, at least among reenactors? In other words, while there will always be, ahem, snugglers on one end, and extreme loners on the other, more people are uncomfortable sharing beds/blankets/spooning now, than in the 1860s?

Or perhaps it's just that reenacting doesn't have the same necessity as "real life." If you're too cold, you can just leave and go someplace warmer. In the real army, if you're too cold, you need to figure out what to do with the limited resources you have.

But then there's also the wider sharing of beds in civilian life in the 1860s too, again for practical reasons, not only warmth but more crowded living quarters, so people were socialized to consider it more normal.

There is an interesting Hermann Melville book called "White Jacket". It's about Melvilles own experiance on an American Navy frigate. He tells the story in short observations about navy life. He mentions that there were strange loner men who stayed aloof and even hid out in the far hidden places in the ship.

Good example. And, of course, Melville himself (http://rictornorton.co.uk/melville.htm) is an example of someone on the other end of the scale, who may have gotten more emotional reward than just practical warmth from experiencing closeness with other men.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[bob 125th nysvi]

more people are uncomfortable sharing beds/blankets/spooning now, than in the 1860s?
hanktrent@voyager.net

That they are. I remember reading someplace when Licoln was traveling on his lawyer business having to share a bed at a hotel with a stranger. In fact if I remember correctly the whole room was filled with strangers and the LUCKY ones could afford the bed.

A large segment of the poorer rural population didn't have homes divided into separate rooms. The house I currently own was constructed in the 1830 and despite being a 300 acre farm the house was too large rooms. One on the first floor and one on the second.

When I grew up my parents had a 4 bedroom house with 6 kids. My only sister got her own room and the five boys split the other two. Today parents (and kids) think they are deprived if they don't have their own bedrooms (with TV and computer of course). In 1860 such demands would have been considered ridiculous by the vast majority of the population.

I'd be real surprised if we came up with more than a handful of actual examples of soldiers who chose to sleep alone. And even if they didn't "spoon" I'd bet good money the sargent didn't let them get too far away from the rest of the unit. That would make desertion too easy.

[tompritchett]

Easy gentlemen. Let's not let our tempers get the better of us here.

[jthlmnn]

[ThurstonHowell,III-Voice] Yes. how dreadful. Forgive us for wasting bytes with direct quotes about spooning from two of the most known period sources. Let us get out of the way of your most excellent use of bytes. Carry on. Chap. [/ThustonHowell,III-Voice]

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

As I stated above, your quotes do not address the issue of someone choosing to be solitary. Period sources are good, but useful only if they address the question/issue at hand. If you believe that I have missed the connection between your post and the question of solitude as a choice, then by all means, correct me and demonstrate the connection. There's a good fellow. :grin:

[FloridaConfederate]

Fortunate was he who had no pard and wrapped himself in his solitary blanket lying upon part of it and covering himself with the rest.

At least one period account found enough fortune in the opportunity to sleep alone that he went through the detail of how to do it.

Furthermore, I detailed a period illustration of six individuals who choose the solitary warmth and comfort of their individual blankets over the collective body heat of the shared blanket puppy pile.... irrespective of their close proximity to each other in one A-frame.

I'm mean really man if you dont see that as indication they (some) would sleep under thier own blanket alone I dont what might convince you ?

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[reb64]

I should clarify that I'm only talking about sharing blankets or sleeping close together out of necessity, which would generally be cold weather or rain, obviously not summer or when plenty of warmth or shelter was available.

I expect there were some "couples" who were doing it for companionship or other reasons, but in general, it seems to be a practical thing in the period, as simple as splitting up mess gear to be carried. The ideal would be to haul it in the wagon, but if that's not available, you just share the burden. Same way, the ideal would be to have a tent and blankets for everyone, but if that's not available...

So what I'm trying to get at is not the mindset "I wish I had a large enough tent/cot/bed/blanket/house so I didn't have to share it." From time immemorial, people have wished they had more luxuries.

I'm trying to get at period examples of the mindset: "I don't care how cold or wet I am, I'm not sleeping with another man, cause that's just gross." That's so common in modern life that we've already seen a couple examples posted on the other thread. But I'm curious how common it was in the period and what sort of man might have felt that way.



I think you're reading way too much into one little throw-away line. I meant it as a simple analogy about portraying common things: It took the same effort for me to feel comfortable calling adult male African-Americans "boy," as it did to sleep with another man when it was cold. I'd never done either one, or known anyone who did, until I began reenacting.

Just as we can discuss men in the period who made it a point not to call African-Americans "boy," we can discuss men who were squeamish about sleeping with other men regardless of cold or wet. In fact, the whole point of this thread is to learn more about the latter.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net



I suppose it is correct to a point but why push it so diligently? I prefer to sleep alone. It sounds as if you look forward to it. If I knew you were on the battlefield, im sewing my blanket shut!

[hanktrent]

I suppose it is correct to a point but why push it so diligently? I prefer to sleep alone. It sounds as if you look forward to it. If I knew you were on the battlefield, im sewing my blanket shut!

I've been in the hobby 20 years, and it's the first time I've discussed this topic, that I recall. Obviously, the only possible reason I could have for bringing it up is because, at 49 years old, after 19 years of marriage, I've decided to become gay. :rolleyes:

Actually, I got tired of hearing so many reenactors brag how they'd never spoon no matter how cold it got, because it sounded farby to me, particularly when some reference to homosexuality was involved, as it often is. I wanted to give them a chance to document that attitude.

Obviously, being accused of homosexuality, or worrying/fantasizing that others are gay, is a big deal in the 20th/21st century. The above post is a good example.

However, as I expected, no one has yet presented evidence that people in the 19th century avoided contact with other men because they feared a connection to homosexuality.

Loners, anti-social types, those who were too different from the majority of their comrades, and such, seem to be most apt to isolate themselves, according to the reasons presented in the period evidence so far. So, if one wanted to accurately portray a person who adamantly refused to share blankets, etc. in the cold and rain, it looks like that would be the type, and it would carry over into not just sleeping, but probably other shared activities, like cooking, socializing, eating, etc.

Actually, I just recalled another example--duh!--the Confederate prisoner I portrayed at Immortal 600, George B. Fitzgerald. He had lice and was filthier than the other men, and was generally considered crazy and a social outcast, a perfect example of the loner who was shunned and/or chose to isolate himself. Despite the overcrowded conditions, his fellow prisoners wrote that he slept alone. I need to pick that role again. I got a whole double-bunk to myself that weekend, while others had to share!

So unless someone comes up with other period examples, I feel confident in my original opinion.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Spinster]

I've been in the hobby 20 years, and it's the first time I've discussed this topic, that I recall. Obviously, the only possible reason I could have for bringing it up is because, at 49 years old, after 19 years of marriage, I've decided to become gay. :rolleyes:

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Hank,

You owe me a keyboard.

Wish you'd gotten to Westville on Thursday night. I was on the end of the spoon line in the sand up under the merchantile stoop, and it got right chilly.

[jthlmnn]

At least one period account found enough fortune in the opportunity to sleep alone that he went through the detail of how to do it.

Furthermore, I detailed a period illustration of six individuals who choose the solitary warmth and comfort of their individual blankets over the collective body heat of the shared blanket puppy pile.... irrespective of their close proximity to each other in one A-frame.

I'm mean really man if you dont see that as indication they (some) would sleep under thier own blanket alone I dont what might convince you ?

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

Original question: Anyone have examples of period soldiers choosing to sleep alone, with just their own shelter half, in cold or rainy weather, when others were available to share things with? Or carrying two shelter halves so they could avoid needing to partner with another to make a full tent? How common was it? What kind of man would choose it? (emphases added by me)

In your first example, we are given no clue as to whether the solitary soldiers chose their condition or it was forced upon them. For all we know, they could well have been ostracized, with the good fortune of being able to keep their blankets from theft being an unintended consequence.

In your second example, nobody is in a tent or shelter half all by themselves. They are not sharing blankets or spooning, true, but that was not part of the original question.

What I am waiting for is an example of someone who, of their own free will, decided to be solitary in their sleeping accomodations. An explanation, preferably their own, of the reason(s) for such a choice would be even better. For me, this would be very interesting reading. I believe such individuals probably did exist. With millions of men involved in military duty, the laws of chance and probability would indicate that there would be at least a few. That, however, would still be surmise and conjecture, not documentation.

[FloridaConfederate]

Original question:

In your first example, we are given no clue as to whether the solitary soldiers chose their condition or it was forced upon them.

I think if a man writes "Fortunate was he who had no pard and wrapped himself in his solitary blanket lying upon part of it and covering himself with the rest."

What do you think his choice is going to be sleep alone or with someone ? In the context of Klegg he had chosen in the same chapter to sleep under the same blanket as Shorty which was later stolen off of them (literally) by veteran Federals. Which demonstrates as fast as you try to nail something in history with specificity it many times can be contradicted with something else from history...I don't think either is wrong or right. Then you have this drawing in the same chapter:

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii312/floridaconfederate/alone0001.jpg

That ol boy looks to be sleeping by himself ? Ostracized ? Dunno know..maybe he was fortunate as the quote from the book says and did what? That's right, he chose to sleep under his own blanket, fortunate that he was and all.

In your second example, nobody is in a tent or shelter half all by themselves. They are not sharing blankets or spooning, true, but that was not part of the original question.

Maybe these ol boys saw our soloist friend above and jumped on the bandwagon ?

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii312/floridaconfederate/Spooning0001.jpg


Anyone have examples of period soldiers choosing to sleep alone, with just their own shelter half, in cold or rainy weather, when others were available to share things with? Or carrying two shelter halves so they could avoid needing to partner with another to make a full tent? How common was it? What kind of man would choose it?

How bout this Professor Thielmann ? Which really crystallizes the question by HT. This sextuplet could've easily chosen to spoon up b'neath shared blankets and be warmer, I've done it, CRRC reccomends it..it is warmer.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[ejazzyjeff]

I think you also got to realize that when you are in the military and with the same people 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, you do tend to get on each other nerves and want solitude and the only time you get that is sleeping by yourself. Also I'm pretty sure that the smell of all those bodies could be another factor.

[Cannon Fodder]

Sounds to me like you guys have never been in the Military. They don't give a Sh_t about your personal feelings or beliefs. They are in the business of getting the job done with the least expense and time as possible. As far as sleeping with comrades only an extremely weird person would think of any thing other than getting the rest you need.

[flattop32355]

The above "group" picture in the common tent might show that "spooning" could have more than one specific definition; sleeping together over and under common bedding, and sleeping together individually wrapped, but in tight quarters or close proximity.

[Mint Julep]

Actually, I got tired of hearing so many reenactors brag how they'd never spoon no matter how cold it got, because it sounded farby to me, particularly when some reference to homosexuality was involved, as it often is. I wanted to give them a chance to document that attitude.

Obviously, being accused of homosexuality, or worrying/fantasizing that others are gay, is a big deal in the 20th/21st century. The above post is a good example.

However, as I expected, no one has yet presented evidence that people in the 19th century avoided contact with other men because they feared a connection to homosexuality.


Hank,

You are wanting people to document what they haven't researched!

I've heard these comments for years, too. I may have said something similar when I first started. However, once you find yourself freezing and then get warm by sharing body heat, you realize how stupid you've been and that your fear was really finding out that you liked it, not that the other guy would like you.

If you ever saw the episode of Friends where Ross and Joey doze off on the couch and awake cuddled together, you get a great example of what I mean. They awoke, startled and uncomfortable with how comfortable they had been snuggled together. But, later, they try it again and find it very comfortable ... until they realize the rest of the crew has caught them at it.

At Chickadusty, we rallied in the parking lot the first night so we could step off at first light that Friday morning. I awoke with my head on the shoulder of the next man. I was a bit surprised to find myself THAT close, but I was comfy, he was comfy and it wasn't dawn, so I just put my head back on his shoulder and went back to sleep. The next morning we agreed it had been a good night's sleep.

It was not uncommon back then for complete strangers to share a bed in a hotel, at least among male travellers. Lincoln and Douglas shared beds on occassion during their series of debates as they travelled the state. Imagine Obama and McCain doing that!! And what would the media make of it? Times have changed and what was once common is now scandal.

[jthlmnn]

I think... Not documentation.

What do you think.... Not documentation.
Then you have this drawing in the same chapter:
Does not demonstrate or document choice or rationale.

That ol boy looks to be sleeping by himself ? Ostracized ? Dunno know..maybe he was fortunate as the quote from the book says and did what? That's right, he chose to sleep under his own blanket, fortunate that he was and all.
Where does it say he chose this and why?

Maybe these ol boys saw our soloist friend above and jumped on the bandwagon ?
Not an illustration of someone alone under a shelter half or using two shelter halves of his own

How bout this Professor Thielmann ? Which really crystallizes the question by HT. This sextuplet could've easily chosen to spoon up b'neath shared blankets and be warmer, I've done it, CRRC reccomends it..it is warmer.
See italics immediately above and add "no documentation of a stated choice to be solitary, much less a rationale for that choice".

Bottom line: Still no response to the question that was originally asked.

[tompritchett]

Bottom line: Still no response to the question that was originally asked.

Moderator Hat: Considering his sources, I would tend to disagree and I would suggest that you drop this challenge before I start deleting posts.

[hendrickms24]

It's more than morals that I am concerned about with sleeping with an unknown or little known feller. There is such things as lice,and other contact conmunicable diseases, or varmints. I sure don't need them in my kit or on my body. Not only that there is the whole smoker issue also. I am ex-smoker, and I now know how smoking odors can infest your clothes and equiment. Ever get in a car that was just smoked in? Yes Yes i know there is camp fire smoke, but that has a different smell to it.


Human fleas, Pulex irritans, are relatively uncommon but if someone in your unit had fleas it would not be long before the rest of the men would have them too. Fleas have been known to make leaps up to 13 inches to move to another host and since soldier stand in formation and basically live on top of each other you would still get fleas even with out spooning.

Head and body lice are spread by contact with an infected person or by sharing combs, towels, sheets, blankets, or clothing so you can still get lice even if you don't spoon with another person.

You can get these little pests anywhere in your everyday life so I don't think you have to worry about spooning!

[FloridaConfederate]

if someone in your unit had fleas it would not be long before the rest of the men would have them too.

I could type for days posting the things I have on CW soldier parasite infestation.


CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[hendrickms24]

That was part of being a soldier back then. That one thing we or at least I can say is I have not experienced having any visitors and don't worry about get them either. The chance of me getting them from reenacting is far slimmer then my son dragging them in from school or from outside. :mrgreen:

[jthlmnn]

Moderator Hat: Considering his sources, I would tend to disagree and I would suggest that you drop this challenge before I start deleting posts.

I have no issues regarding Mr. Rideout's sources. I usually find them interesting and informative. My issues here lie with what they do/do not demonstrate regarding the question originally posted by Mr. Trent.

The type of responses I was hoping for, assuming they exist somewhere, would have been citations of individuals refusing partners: military hermits, if you will. A stated reason for this would have made the citation even more interesting. Such responses could have taken the form of:

"So-and-so was angry about his (fill in the blank) being stolen and vowed never to share a tent again."

"Thus-and-such always stayed by himself. Offers to partner in a tent were politely refused. He never did say why."

"At every opportunity I set up a solitary shop. I am just more comfortable this way, having been raised as an only child."

Since this is proving fruitless, I will honor your request to drop the issue.

[tompritchett]

The type of responses I was hoping for, assuming they exist somewhere, would have been citations of individuals refusing partners: military hermits, if you will. A stated reason for this would have made the citation even more interesting. Such responses could have taken the form of:

"So-and-so was angry about his (fill in the blank) being stolen and vowed never to share a tent again."

"Thus-and-such always stayed by himself. Offers to partner in a tent were politely refused. He never did say why."

"At every opportunity I set up a solitary shop. I am just more comfortable this way, having been raised as an only child."

Since this is proving fruitless, I will honor your request to drop the issue.

Actually the examples you provided would indeed be interesting to see documentation for. Yes, his original references did not include examples of people refusing partners. I suspect that if you had not attempted to invalidate the references that he posted but merely restated the question as he have now with examples, I probably would have never had to step in.

Chris, or others, do any of you have such documented examples of individuals refusing partners such as John has listed?

[Elaine Kessinger]

Something that might shed some light on the subject, maybe, and is just a possibility (Ok boys, please play nice)...
Has anyone thought to check diaries and journals of the folks in a unit which later documented a woman in the ranks. Her sucess depended on keeping her secret, so maybe solitude ..or at least hesitation/ mild objection may be part.. ..and as you gents have said, it was an unusual attitude for a soldier to take, so it might have been noted.
I realize the original question was about men chosing solitude, but this may lead to that.

[bob 125th nysvi]

also known as Pvt. Albert D.J. Cashier of the Co. G, 95th Illinois Infantry, mustered in August, 1862 and mustered out 3 years and 11 days later, was known to be a loaner. She is the only woman known to have served out her entire enlistment without being discovered. In fact she continued to live as a man for many years after the war. Her true identity as a woman was only discovered in 1911 after she was struck by an auto. She was granted a pension in 1899 after passing a physical. And was buried in her civil war uniform in October 1915 at the insistance of the GAR.

She made little effort to mingle with her fellow soldiers, sitting apart and watching the camp activities.

In his book "The Life of Billy Yank, the Common Soldier of the Union" Bell Irvin Wiley qoutes one soldier who explained "These men were irreproachable soldiers ... but they seemed shut up within an impenetrable shell, and would be on their blankets silent while all others joined in the social round ... They would cook by themselves, eat by themselves, camp by themselves ... in fact keep by themselves at all times as much as possible."

Cited FYI Strategy & Tactics Magazine #254 pages 35-36.

Now this tells us several things. Soldiers who chose to sleep alone were not homophobic but loners in general. Other than combat and assigned duties they did not socialize with their fellow soldiers being more observers than participants. That while it was accepted as long as the were good soldiers it happened infrequently enough to be noticeable and worth commenting on. And inferred from the comment, loners were considered somewhat odd.

So if you want justification to sleep alone no matter what here is your role model.

But don't be the life of the campfire and then go off to sleep alone all the while claiming you are 'authentic'.

[tompritchett]

John and Chris, as I was thinking further about this thread it dawned on me that what one considers to be "choses not to" another can consider as "refuses to". Just food for thought.

[jthlmnn]

My thanks to Ms. Kessinger and Mr. Sandusky for their posts. Checking further along the line of Elaine's suggestion should be interesting and will provide a direction for my "fun" reading in the near future. Mr. Sandusky has provided one example from Elaine's suggestion, testimony that there were other "loners-by-choice", and that they were unusual enough to merit comment. Any others out there? Maybe some other first or second hand testimony as to the attitudes/motives of these solitary soldiers?

[IPBarnard]

It's more than morals that I am concerned about with sleeping with an unknown or little known feller. There is such things as lice,and other contact conmunicable diseases, or varmints. I sure don't need them in my kit or on my body. Not only that there is the whole smoker issue also. I am ex-smoker, and I now know how smoking odors can infest your clothes and equiment. Ever get in a car that was just smoked in? Yes Yes i know there is camp fire smoke, but that has a different smell to it.

Just when I started to think you had the Kentuckian impression down you pull this?

Mark C. Foster
9Ky co C

[Pvt Schnapps]

FWIW: "I slept alone, after Bill's death, not caring to have a chum with me"

“Sergeant Atkins” p. 226, 1871 (a novel about the Seminole Wars by an army officer)

[missourah rebel]

I was at Prairie Grove, Arkansas in December and had a chance to see this first hand. I spent my first night sleeping cozy in my tent, next to my sister, under quilts and on top of hay and a feather ticking. The next night I was to tired and had spent to much time in the Yankee tavern of Miss Tula's that I was happy to sit at the Tater Mess' fire on the Yankee side. These guys are hard core with no tents and only what they could carry on their backs. As they went to bed, they would climb up under their little lean-tos and spoon up to eachother. It was hard to tell where one person ended another began. It was a muttle of people. I ended up spooning next to a Yank from Nebraska that I didn't know but who was shivering like crazy. Being a woman, I wasn't thinking about him being a man or anything like that. I was thinking I was cold, he was definately cold, and we shared body warmth and his blanket as I had none. While I didn't sleep well, I was fairly warm for a night that 25 with no cloud cover and frost on the ground when I got up. I was pleasantly surprised about the whole experience. I would expect this was more common than my cozy tent experience the first night.

[Mint Julep]

I wrote, up above in the thread:


I'm seriously curious about that. It's easy to document men sleeping in the same bed or small tent in military or civilian life, but has anyone tried to document a prejudice against it, in the period? I wonder when and why society changed?

Me, I look at spooning as one of those things that we're uncomfortable with today, but that you just have to get used to when portraying the 1860s, like acting racist, being sexist, and wearing slick-soled shoes. Besides, it's a heck of a lot warmer.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Hank,

I was just reading Hard Tack and Coffee by Billings again for the first time in about 25 years. I found the comment on page 52

"It was only rarely that soldier was met with who was so crooked a stick that no one would chum with him, or that cared for no chum, although I have seen a few such cases in my experience."

Also on page 67, there is a much longer paragraph describing the solitary soldier. This sounds like a man that has opted against spooning, but doesn't imply that he is opposed to it. Perhaps he just prefers his own company?