How long did uniforms last?

[Artyman]

So, the seminar instructor standing before us states, without reservation, that while on campaign a pair of trousers wore out in a month, and a jacket in two to three months. He also went on to add that there were as many frock coats worn by confeds as anything else.

So, his conclusion was that we can wear just about anything we can find.

I pondered his statements all the way home. There were two possibilitys. First, he was wrong. Second he was right. If right, then how could anyone wear out a pair of wool trousers in a month. Cripes, even in the jungles of Borneo uniforms lasted longer than that.

The 5th Texas was issued new uniforms in Richmond in June of 1863 and was wearing them at Gettysburg. Photos of the dead show the uniforms still in pretty good shape. That was about a month of service and at least one forced march old.

I gotta think pants lasted longer than a month!

Now, linen and cotton might get ripped up pretty fast, but wool?

How about it Hank?

Harry

[hanktrent]

Second he was right. If right, then how could anyone wear out a pair of wool trousers in a month....

Now, linen and cotton might get ripped up pretty fast, but wool?

For experimental archaelogy on wool uniforms, we need to get some of the 6th corps march guys to weigh in.

For what it's worth, I have a pair of handsewn cotton trousers that I've worn for about 225 miles in two weeks, spread out over three events, plus probably another dozen or so miles and another couple weeks, spread out over several other events. That'd probably come close to a typical month in the field for someone on campaign.

The bottom hems are worn through, and the crotch area split out and needed resewed, and there's a little hole in the thigh that I need to patch from a thorn snag or something, but otherwise, the fabric is still strong. In a photo, I don't think they'd look particularly worn at all. So I'm just not picturing typical cotton trousers wearing out in a month, let alone wool.

Socks and shoes, though--that's another matter. I could see socks getting too rotten to darn, and shoe soles wearing through in a couple months on hard dry summer roads.

So, his conclusion was that we can wear just about anything we can find.
Even if his premise were true, I don't see how that follows. It'd still be impression specific, depending on where and when replacement uniforms were coming from.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Poor Private]

You also have to consider, what thier work clothes were- it was thier uniforms. They also didn't have to take care of thier clothes with the same mentality that we do, we have to pay for replacements out of our own pockets they didn't.
What did they wear to dig latrines, or cut down trees, or build anything. When we do a walk about we are not walking in the same way they did. They forded lots of rivers, and streams, they didn't walk on nice concrete sidewalks or tarmacked roads, or manicured paths. Spend a week wearing the same clothes building a cordurory road and then wearing them to march somewhere and then to fight in them. How about the famous mud march I bet those clothes didn'ty last very long.
Our day to day is so totally different than thier day to day--that I can see them last a month or less.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

You have to bear in mind that they did indeed have to pay for replacement uniforms if they wore out before its intended replacement by the government. They weren't just handed everything for free, they had an allowance, and everything past that came out of their own pocket. I'm sure some of those boys made every effort to stretch out the life of what they had and surely many went to great lengths to patch, repair, and extend the life of a garment. Back to the original query, though - From past experience there are certain points that wear out faster on a garment, such as the crotch area on trousers. We've all been there at one point or the other, but just how long did it take then to completely wear out. Except for a handful of true campaign events with the marching element added in, we don't replicate the same day-in, day-out wear and tear that they did, so its pretty hard to tell. It also depended greatly on the contractor or supplier and the quality of material and workmanship.

[flattop32355]

IIRC, there is a schedule of replacement for Federal clothing (Federal Regs?). Whether that was based upon pre-war expectations or not I have no clue.

Just because it was scheduled for replacement didn't mean that supply kept up with the troops. There are many records of threadbare Federal troops all the way to near the end of the war, not to mention the "Ragged Reb".

Not every item was scheduled for replacement at similar intervals; some were expected to last longer than others.

Then you've got the question of how long something lasts manning the forts around Washington, DC or Charleston, SC compared to summer/fall/winter campaigning. That doesn't account for variations in quality previously stated.

Try wearing the same pair of boxers and/or socks for a month straight, 24/7....see how they hold up, even with modern materials and manufacture. That should give you a small idea.

[hanktrent]

What did they wear to dig latrines, or cut down trees, or build anything.

That's certainly true; wear-patterns are different for different activities. Shoveling breaks down shoes quickly; kneeling wears out knees, etc.

they didn't walk on nice concrete sidewalks or tarmacked roads, or manicured paths. Spend a week wearing the same clothes building a cordurory road and then wearing them to march somewhere and then to fight in them. How about the famous mud march I bet those clothes didn'ty last very long.

I dunno, in my experience, the worst surface for clothes seems to be pavement and gravel. On wet ground, there's a point at which rotting from constant dampness could become a problem of course, but friction is less of an issue.

Thirty miles at Piney Woods on soft dirt and some slight mud added absolutely no visible wear to my shoes, but Charles Heath and I were both surprised at how the flat, level, hardpacked and kinda gravelled towpath in Maryland added wear to our shoes even after only a day or two, which was about the same distance. He said it looked like they'd been held against a grindstone. After almost 200 miles of that, my shoes were worn down to only 1/4" left on the backs of the heels and the first layer of sole was worn through. So they were still wearable, but barely, and I suspect that Missouri Boot & Shoe may make more durable shoes than the cheaper army contractors in the period.

Anyone got any "experimental archaeology" on how clothes hold up in constant mud and damp? I don't think mine have been wet for more than a couple days straight--either the sun comes out or the event ends.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Poor Private]

You have to bear in mind that they did indeed have to pay for replacement uniforms if they wore out before its intended replacement by the government. They weren't just handed everything for free, they had an allowance, and everything past that came out of their own pocket. I'm sure some of those boys made every effort to stretch out the life of what they had and surely many went to great lengths to patch, repair, and extend the life of a garment. Back to the original query, though - From past experience there are certain points that wear out faster on a garment, such as the crotch area on trousers. We've all been there at one point or the other, but just how long did it take then to completely wear out. Except for a handful of true campaign events with the marching element added in, we don't replicate the same day-in, day-out wear and tear that they did, so its pretty hard to tell. It also depended greatly on the contractor or supplier and the quality of material and workmanship.

Ross,
Who are you referring to by paying for thier replacement parts? North or South or both?
In all my reading of the 2nd Kentucky none of them had to pay for replacements of any part of thier uniforms.-- Of course they scavanged most of thier equipment and uniforms I have read of only one time when they were outfitted (if I remember correctly) in one of Dee Alexander Browns books. In one example they took the horses and great coats off of union prisoners, to help make it through the winter. Also different theaters received thier replacements rather sporadically from the depots. And why else would the dead be stripped of any usable equipment, different people wear out their clothes at different rates. In my real world job I can make my job provided clothes last longer than my helpers. It all depends on what your assigned, if your a neat freak like me all my stuff lasts longer than most. YOu get your stuff when you can. If my shoes were wore out and a dead guys would fit me guess whose feet they would be on, same with clothes.
Like it was said before we buy the best that we can afford we don't (most of us anyways) buy shoddy. I hear of shoes being issued that had carboard soles, bet they didn't last till next scheduled replacement.
You cant have everything set in concrete, just because the regs says this is this and that is that -excrement happens.

[Artyman]

In Viet Nam my jungle boots had just began to rip away from the sole when I was hit, about three months into my tour, and after about 20 days of monsoon. The leather was rotting along the seam. Further, we only got one issue of clean clothes during that same period, and they were used but washed...not new. However, not counting the holes and tears, the clothing was all holding up pretty good. We, for the most part, didn't make any effort to mend anything, but we washed our uniforms every chance we got, usually in a river or stream, usually while still wearing them! They had faded almost grey in that short time. We were in the toughest part of the bush, never using roads or trails, clumb a mountain practically every day.

I can see where the ACW guys would have shoe issues, but not counting tears and cuff wear, I just can't see wool rotting in only a month. The stuff was at least tougher than jungle fatgue rip stop cotton drill.

I did wear the crotch out of a pair of fine wool officers breechs in two seasons several years ago, but I patched the worn spot. The rest of the fabric was (is) still good.

Harry

[Jim Mayo]

When you talk of uniform wear there has to be a location and time period considered. This all has to do with supply, availability and what the army is doing at the time. Also they didn't have to make things per mil-specs at that time and some real junk got issued to the soldiers. I suggest you get a copy of Thomas Arliskas book, "Cadet Gray and Butternut Brown". It is available in paper back from Thomas Publications. It contains lots of first person descriptions and illustrations. I am not reviewing the book but there are some conclusions I don't completly agree with however it is the latest work on the subject and is an easy read.

[hanktrent]

Ross,
Who are you referring to by paying for thier replacement parts? North or South or both?

I'm sure Ross will have a lot more on this, but that's just the way the army worked, north and south.

Here are the Confederate regulations (http://books.google.com/books?id=cXoDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA107&output=html&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0), which go into more detail at that link, but they include the following paragraphs:

Ordinarily the company commander will procure and issue clothing to his men twice a year; at other times when necessary in special cases.

Such articles of clothing as the soldier may need will be issued to him. When the issues equal in value his allowance for the year, further issues are extra issues, to be charged to him on the next muster-roll.

Needless to say, this worked better at some times and places than others, but that was the goal.

According to the chart at that link, a man was allowed:

--three trousers his first year and two each year after that, same for drawers

--four pairs of shoes and socks each year

--three shirts each year

--two coats the first year followed by one coat each year after that.

While that's no indication that men actually received exactly that, it does give an idea how long items were expected to last, if shortages weren't a problem.

Interestingly enough, though it's been ages since I've looked at that chart, it fits with what we've been saying here--shoes and socks are the first to go, expecting to be replaced every three months.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[hta1970]

You have to bear in mind that they did indeed have to pay for replacement uniforms if they wore out before its intended replacement by the government. They weren't just handed everything for free, they had an allowance, and everything past that came out of their own pocket. I'm sure some of those boys made every effort to stretch out the life of what they had and surely many went to great lengths to patch, repair, and extend the life of a garment. Back to the original query, though - From past experience there are certain points that wear out faster on a garment, such as the crotch area on trousers. We've all been there at one point or the other, but just how long did it take then to completely wear out. Except for a handful of true campaign events with the marching element added in, we don't replicate the same day-in, day-out wear and tear that they did, so its pretty hard to tell. It also depended greatly on the contractor or supplier and the quality of material and workmanship.

Ross,

You are quite correct about this. When the Commutation period ended in October 1862, Confederate soldiers were given an annual allowance of $134.13 towards clothing. Each item drawn was accounted for and at the end of the year, any remaining money for clothing not drawn was given to the solder. If he was discharged, the number of days served were accounted for on a per diem rate for clothing and the money given to the soldier. If he was killed, that money was given to his next of kin. A search of the Compiled Military Service Records will confirm this fact.

These records are far from complete, but I have not found anyone drawing more that their allowance. It seems drawing less than the allowance to be much more common.

There was a definate incentive to not draw all the clothed you were entitled to draw as this money was a considerable sum on a private's pay.

From my research into clothing records for 2nd Corps ANV Artillery, new clothes were typically issues in the spring and fall, with additional issues at other times as needed for new recruits, etc.

YOS,

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

http://howardlanham.tripod.com/link52.htm This is the chart showing the clothing allowance from the US regulations. As previously stated, actual practices may vary, but this was widely used and practiced for much of the war by volunteer and regular regiments alike. This is where clothing sent from home, particularly shirts, drawers, and socks could save a soldier some money over time. For CS service, there was much variance from regulation at times, but mostly due to the inablility of the quartermaster department or the states to meet the regulation demand, let alone actual demand. The commutation system helped initially, however it was proven time and again that even the monies provided by the government couldn't cover the inflated cost of yard goods , particularly as the war progressed, leading the way for the national government to step in and ramp up their quartermaster department as a measure to control wool and cotton prices. For further reading on that topic I highly suggest "Cadet Gray and Butternut Brown" by Tom Arliskas

[Pvt Schnapps]

It's a pretty broad subject, but the basics as others have pointed out are that both northern and southern soldiers had a clothing allowance and thus an incentive to take care of their clothes as best they could.

My least favorite scene in "Cold Mountain" comes at the beginning when our hero is invited to just take an item of clothing from a selection being brought around in a wheelbarrow. "Didn't they ever hear of a form 52?!" I wanted to shout. Oh well. E. L. Doctorow promotes a similar misconception in his novel "The March." What do you expect from fiction writers?

But we're all at least amateur historians, so we have an obligation to know just a little bit better. By knowing a little about how soldiers received and remained responsible for clothing and equipment we can go a long way from playing soldier to being historical interpreters.

In the north, for the volunteers who made up the majority of the army, the allowance was $3.50 a month, raised to $4 in late 1864. Clothing prices were adjusted annually based on the average prices paid by the government in the previous year. Uniform coats, for example, ranged from $7 to $8.75, drawers from $0.50 to $1 (cotton went up a lot more than wool, and mass production offset some increases for everything). The full lists are in General Orders, which you can find on Google Books or through Silas's links. When soldiers received clothing the monetary value was recorded under their name in the company clothing book and reconciled periodically against pay.

In the south, where inflation really took off in 1863, I've read of efforts made by civilians with connections to get clothing at "government prices." These were nominal given the depreciated currency in which the soldiers were paid, and far less than what the market would bear.

Wear varied according to conditions and quality. The really shoddy clothing that contractors unloaded in early 1861 seem to have been quickly forestalled by the imposition of regular contracting procedures that same year. John McElroy writes very favorably of the durability of his government clothing in Andersonville, though ultimately it went. Sherman's troops seem mostly to have received new supplies in Savannah, but the conditions attending the march through the rainy Carolinas in the winter of '65 reduced many to rags -- I've read of soldiers availing themselves of Confederate stores.

Boots wore out according to construction. Some types seem to have fallen apart before they wore down. The army swore by hand-sewn brogans before the war, but by 1865 one of Sherman's quartermasters reports to Meigs that sewn brogans are worthless and the men won't take any if they can get pegged -- perhaps by that time the sewn are machine sewn.

I have several pairs of brogans that I rotate and maintain as well as I can. Two of these are from MB&S. My sewn brogans wore enough to start separating after a few months -- maybe 50 miles. I put hobnails on them and they've lasted a bit longer.

I still have a pair of Chris Daley's federal enlisted trousers that I bought seven years ago. In that time they've probably seen at least three or four months in the field. They're a bit thinner in the seat and frayed along the pockets. Also I've replaced all the buttons. Still, they're basically sound, probably because they haven't been wet and worn straight for all that time -- generally I can dry and brush them after just a couple of days.

I only made a few days on the Sixth Corps march and everything got drenched in sweat. A couple of weeks of that might have really told on the fabric but, as it was, I was able to get everything home and take care of it. I washed my sack and trousers by gently soaking in body temperature water, which seemed to get most of the salt and an amazing amount of accumulated dirt.

To circle back to the original question, the replacement cycle given by Hank and mentioned by Ross reflected the experience of the government with a peace time army. Under field conditions clothes would wear out more quickly and during the war the regular monetary allowance became less and less adequate. For federals the situation was considerably alleviated by regular pay that held most of its value and, for many, increasingly large bounties.

[hanktrent]

John McElroy writes very favorably of the durability of his government clothing in Andersonville, though ultimately it went.

I wasn't going to bring that up, but since you did... :)

Andersonville seems to be an exception to the durability of clothing. Many of the men who arrived there in the early spring are described as pretty much being in unrepairable rags by late summer. That's only about six months--the same time a pair of trousers was expected to still be presentable in the pre-war army, far from rags. While some men were working as hard as they might have been on campaign, chopping wood, digging wells, and so forth, others were doing far less.

Some men complained of having clothes stolen before arrival. Others may have sold their better clothes for food, though in general I'd think those good clothes would rotate around the prison rather than being siphoned outside of the prison by the sutler taking them in trade. So theft of clothing may explain some missing clothes, but still, too many clothes were simply wearing out to rags in six months.

The only explanation I can think is that some clothes may have already been nearing the end of the lifespan when they were captured, and rotting of fabric was hastened by not having facilities to wash, and sustained warm, wet (especially June), muddy conditions.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Pvt Schnapps]

The only explanation I can think is that some clothes may have already been nearing the end of the lifespan when they were captured, and rotting of fabric was hastened by not having facilities to wash, and sustained warm, wet (especially June), muddy conditions.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

I think all those explanations apply. It also occurs to me that, bad as Andersonville was, the wear and tear reported in the Carolinas was even worse, in that it occurred in as many weeks.

Of course, we don't have any stats, only anecdotal accounts that we have to be careful about taking literally. It's interesting that Billings, when he discusses clothing, writes more of clothing lost or thrown away than worn out. I guess the artillery suffered less from this than the infantry.

The regular peacetime army had fixed posts and laundresses. A USCT officer (I don't have the cite right at hand) complains that his men have no facilities for cleaning, so their clothes wear out much more quickly. Maybe one of our civilian fabric experts can chime in on the effect of dirt, sand, etc. on wool.

Some practices in the field may have accelerated wear, I think. Drying clothes at the fire, for example, or "de-lousing" by singeing the critters off the seams. That can't help.

[reb64]

I can see where the ACW guys would have shoe issues, but not counting tears and cuff wear, I just can't see wool rotting in only a month. The stuff was at least tougher than jungle fatgue rip stop cotton drill.

Harry

constant brushing of wool against objects leads to knapping then thinning in spots. it may not rot but it may thin to a point of splitting, tearing, snagging etc. knees, seats and crotches are big points. and did the man mean worn out by dress parade standards or field use? just like today, acus rip but can be repaired but you wouldnt wear em to a inspection if better were available.

[reb64]

[QUOTE=Pvt Schnapps;119111]It's a pretty broad subject, but the basics as others have pointed out are that both northern and southern soldiers had a clothing allowance and thus an incentive to take care of their clothes as best they could.

My least favorite scene in "Cold Mountain" comes at the beginning when our hero is invited to just take an item of clothing from a selection being brought around in a wheelbarrow. "Didn't they ever hear of a form 52?!" I wanted to shout. Oh well. E. L. Doctorow promotes a similar misconception in his novel "The March." What do you expect from fiction writers?

Or how about the boot/enfield issue scenes in Glory? I guess the CSA had a form 52 but you dont think soldiers traded up clothing if the oppurtuniy came up.? in the movie a associate allows them to do so before he turns in the items. same thing modern army, we have records up the ying yang and overworked supply sgts. dont think we didnt help our selves trade boots, uniforms in the desert when the chance arouse.

[Pvt Schnapps]

The Confederates did have a 52 -- the Confederate army regulations differed little from the US regulations at the beginning of the war, though both evolved in different directions over time according to acts of their respective congresses and general orders.

I do think soldiers traded items -- I've read several accounts of such. But those accounts describe trades of items they'd drawn for other items of equal value. I also think that, when the company had a tailor, they had their clothing fitted and repaired. Some battle losses were replaced without cost. Some soldiers probably also stole items.

But the general rule remains: soldiers on both sides had clothing accounts against which issues were charged.

I admit I'm not entirely sure what your question was, but I hope that answered it.

[Artyman]

The question is being answered just fine. I wondered if a seminar I attended was accurate when the instructor stated that pants only lasted a month in the field. Well, seems as a result we're finding out that maybe he's right, though I still can't imagine it, basing that imagination on the real life beatings I gave my uniforms in Viet Nam and in later life events (like the month and a half I spent in the bush at Philmont Scout Ranch in 1971).

I have a well done pair of wool trousers I'm wearing right now. They have 2 events and 8 meetings on them right now. I figure that totals to 8 days total wear. By the end of the season I should hit more than 30 days. Guess I'll find out if they make it.

In modern tech, I wonder if dry cleaning is any worse on wool stuff than just plain water?

Harry

[hanktrent]

the instructor stated that pants only lasted a month in the field. Well, seems as a result we're finding out that maybe he's right, though I still can't imagine it

Wait... I thought that most of the posts were supporting much longer wear, closer to the range of six months more or less.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Artyman]

Yeah, you are right. I re read the thread and that is the consensus.

Harry

[Blair]

It is really difficult for us today to judge how well an item may or may not have warn during the time period.
Most of these guys wore these articles of clothing day in and day out. What we call 24-7-365. We can't come close to developing the wear and wear patterns on these garments when we may only wear them 10 times a year (and I believe this number to be very high for many people) for two or perhaps three days at a time.
Do a survey or a poll and see just what the average number of reenactment events the average reenacter goes to in a years time.
I own articles of clothing that are now more than 30 years old and that I can still wear today. I have taken care of my stuff because it was expensive when I got it and I wanted it to last.
Now, just in case anyone is wondering, back in the good old daze when I was Sutler I went to as many as 40 events a year, in uniform and I tried to "play" in as many of those as I could manage and still sell goods to the troops. That is how I managed to pay for my play.

[hanktrent]

Most of these guys wore these articles of clothing day in and day out. What we call 24-7-365. We can't come close to developing the wear and wear patterns on these garments when we may only wear them 10 times a year (and I believe this number to be very high for many people) for two or perhaps three days at a time.

But I don't think anyone's saying to judge the wear based on hobby-wide averages. I suggested the 6th corps march guys, because they marched something like 135 miles in a week. I think that's a reasonable approximation of period wear on campaign for a week.

The personal anecdote I gave for cotton pants was for walking more than 200 miles over three events lasting six days, six days and four days, plus enough shorter events (coupla days, 5-6 miles) to add up to a couple more weeks. I think that's also a reasonable approximation of period wear on campaign for a month. And yes, we're talking wearing the clothes 24 hours a day during the events, wading creeks, walking through mud, being out in the rain, and so forth.

I'm not sure why anecdotes like that don't have some relevance?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"I'm not sure why anecdotes like that don't have some relevance?"

IMHO...

The more one emulates and replicates the Period life style demands, the greater the relevance (and experiemental archeology inferences and deductions).

But on the other side of the scales, if one sits around a campfire at a weekend event, visits sutlers' row a few times, does a drill session, a ball, and two battles- then the relevance and correlation decline.

Ideally, and when and where possible, neither Federal or Confederate soldiers were NUG on a 24/7/365 clothing and gear issuance cycle. Meaning, clothing and gear was intended or scheduled to last "so long" and then be replaced as the supply system could keep up in the field or as men needed (or were allowed to skip their cycle) replacement items.
For example, look at the scheduled (ideal) rate for shoes weighed against times and places
where shoes were badly needed or men barefooted.

CHS

[Artyman]

The instructor of the seminar I mentioned was John Raterink. He sent me a private message to explain the intention of his instruction. He also wanted me to know the source material he used to base his conclusions upon. I thank him for this and I hope to read the source material myself very soon.

I want all of you on this thread to appreciate the value I place upon such instructors and the appreciation we all should have for such men who take the time to do classes like these. Below is a copy of the reply I sent to him, and the thanks I offer him and all the instructors who helped make the Medich drill at Fort Wayne Detriot so valuable! I hope he doesn't mind that I am sharing it with all of you.

QUOTE "Regardless John, You did a fine job and made many of us rethink our core impressions. That's what the hobby needs. "Cookie Cutter" uniforms never were a fact of life in the CSA after the first year and I have always thought that there were too few frock coats. Just look at the old photos of newly captured prisoners. Half will have frocks, half kepis, half knapsacks. This, in spite of those I talk with every event who insist most Confeds wore slouch hats, short jackets, blanket rolls.

You got us all thinking, and the fact that your seminar is still working in our discussion shows that it had greater value than perhaps any of the others.

Maybe a month is pushing the pants life a bit, but before you made that point I had not really even considered the notion.

In the end we will all be better off as a result of your seminar, even if it challenges the findings of the author you quoted. That, after all, is why we call it "living" history." UNQUOTE

If we didn't care about these things, pretty soon we'd all look like the we did in 1962 when anything and everything was considered good enough.

I hope you all share my appreciation and offer thanks to those you know who also stick their necks out to teach these seminars and further, I hope that Mr. Raterink doesn't think I was pointing a finger at him personally, but rather at an idea that I thought might need some further study. Pretty much everything else he said was right on the mark!

Thanks John, and thanks to all you guys (and gals) who put so much time and treasure into furthering the hobby.

Harry

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"Just look at the old photos of newly captured prisoners. Half will have frocks, half kepis, half knapsacks."

In the absence of that evidence, analysis, inference...

While everyone can look at Period images and draw their own conclusions, IMHO, I do not think that the Period images of Confederate prisoners such as the Belle Plain "Punch Bowl" or the Camp Douglas "Prisoner Square" images, or the White House Landing image, etc., etc, support a "half" frocks or half kepi's deduction?

(One way or the other, an open invitation to post CS prisoner images so I don't have to do all of the work... ;) :) )

I do believe Commutation era, and "from home" "frock coats" are uderrepresented in some segments of the CW Community, but they were not what the predominant Confederate depot system was cranking out circa 1862-1865 as being "half."

Others' mileage will vary...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/Michael1787/CWConfederate20Prisoners20at20Chica.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/Michael1787/CWconfederate_prisoners_belle.jpg

CHS

[sigsaye]

The instructor of the seminar I mentioned was John Raterink. He sent me a private message to explain the intention of his instruction. He also wanted me to know the source material he used to base his conclusions upon. I thank him for this and I hope to read the source material myself very soon.

I want all of you on this thread to appreciate the value I place upon such instructors and the appreciation we all should have for such men who take the time to do classes like these. Below is a copy of the reply I sent to him, and the thanks I offer him and all the instructors who helped make the Medich drill at Fort Wayne Detriot so valuable! I hope he doesn't mind that I am sharing it with all of you.

QUOTE "Regardless John, You did a fine job and made many of us rethink our core impressions. That's what the hobby needs. "Cookie Cutter" uniforms never were a fact of life in the CSA after the first year and I have always thought that there were too few frock coats. Just look at the old photos of newly captured prisoners. Half will have frocks, half kepis, half knapsacks. This, in spite of those I talk with every event who insist most Confeds wore slouch hats, short jackets, blanket rolls.

You got us all thinking, and the fact that your seminar is still working in our discussion shows that it had greater value than perhaps any of the others.

Maybe a month is pushing the pants life a bit, but before you made that point I had not really even considered the notion.

In the end we will all be better off as a result of your seminar, even if it challenges the findings of the author you quoted. That, after all, is why we call it "living" history." UNQUOTE

If we didn't care about these things, pretty soon we'd all look like the we did in 1962 when anything and everything was considered good enough.

I hope you all share my appreciation and offer thanks to those you know who also stick their necks out to teach these seminars and further, I hope that Mr. Raterink doesn't think I was pointing a finger at him personally, but rather at an idea that I thought might need some further study. Pretty much everything else he said was right on the mark!

Thanks John, and thanks to all you guys (and gals) who put so much time and treasure into furthering the hobby.

HarryI believe that most on the information concerning the life span of issue clothing was documented in a post war QM report. It was posted on the old AC archives. If I recal, the Army felt that if a pair of trousers lasted between 30 and 90 days "in the field" they got their moneys worth. Remember, these were worn 24-7, rain and shine for all activities. As I recal, the life spans were averages based on survays and used to recomend improvements in the next generation of uniforms.

Steve Hesson

[Busterbuttonboy]

All
We need to keep in mind although wool is a short fiber compared to linen it is stout and holds up rather well.
If you are buying goods from quality vendors and caring for these goods in an authentic manner you can be confident in the term of their field use. In short, for every item I buy I make a concerted effort to keep a log of the days in the field. The termination is when the item could no longer be patched, repaired or fielded.
Obviously there will be other slight variables, however here are some of my readings:
Gum Blanket: 89 days.
Trousers: 43 days - 51 days. Those were two pair.
Sack Coat: 90+ (seeing holes and sleeves pulling now)
Canteen: 75 + (though rusted)
Booties: 60 (two pair both averaging the same)
Knapsack: 40+
Abe Thomas Blanket: 70 (approx) +

The + numbers represent the items which I still have in service. It is interesting to me that while I put my gear through period use and equally continued authentic care, they get just about to the quarterly review threshold and give out. While this may not be the exact answer you are looking for, I am confident that if you explore period primary documents you will be able to see a combination of field usage as compared to gear longevity. Unfortunately I have none to offer but I equally confident that if people stop bickering and help provide you with the sources you seek, you may find a clearer answer. Try this experiment yourself to help make these numbers tangible. Of course progressive gear from quality vendors will help your impressions last for accurate times.

[skamikaze]

For experimental archaelogy on wool uniforms, we need to get some of the 6th corps march guys to weigh in.

None of my woolens showed much wear when the final mile was stepped, except for the socks. The cotton ones wore out almost instantly and the wool ones, which were brand new at the start, could have been thrown away by mile 120.

My cotton stuff on the other hand, shirt and drawers, did not fare as well. The drawers (also brand new) had come close to wearing out in the knees and seat and had torn at the crotch on day 4 (maybe 80 miles in). The shirt faded badly and started to stretch in places.

One thing we all noticed was that without washing the clothing, the sweat buildup would prevent it from drying. This could easily have led to more fabric wear and disintegration had we continued another week.

I have some Robert Land brogans that I bought in March of last year. I have since put an estimated 300 miles on them. They are now starting to show a good bit of wear. They have worn through the first sole layer on both shoes and the stitching in the toe of the right one is starting to rot and come undone. I estimate I could get another 2-300 miles in them, depending on how quickly they deteriorate after a certain stage.

[Busterbuttonboy]

Eric
Your notes are amazing. Interesting about the condition of the socks, I dont know why I expected them to last longer. Your comments about the shirt and sweat are similar to mine. However I am curious on the last Gburg March, were the majority of miles on pavement? Or did youll stick to shoulders?

[Artyman]

Now we're getting somewhere! Great notes!

As a well known forum member might say "other's mileage may vary!"

Harry

[skamikaze]

All of Northern Virginia was on concrete, and that was the worst of it. When we got to Maryland we were on rural roads for the most part, so there was a shoulder of fine, loose gravel.

The difference between asphalt as concrete is amazing, there is so much give in asphalt on a hot summer day whereas concrete makes it feel like you have bricks for shoes. It is rougher as well and tears away the soles and also does considerable damage to your heel plates. Mine are about worn through now. Haven't had that happen before. Wonder how often they replaced heel plates, or if the shoe gave out before that was an option.

I will say that when portraying a soldier on campaign, I would not wear either cotton socks or canvas camp shoes. Comfort has little to do with function especially when it comes to your feet. Though those items are considerably more comfortable in camp, they would wear out in no time on the march.

Joe Bordanaro went as far as to cut vent holes in the side of his brogans to keep his toes from getting pinched on the hills of Mount Airy. I had the same problem, as our feet were swelling with the heat and exercise. I could go uphill just fine, but going down, my feet would scoot forward and smash my toes in the front of my brogans. Ended up with a broken toe from stress fracture. My toes remained a dark purple for weeks afterward. We tried everything to prevent it, wrapping my feet, putting cotton in the toes, but only Joe's vents worked. Wish I had done that.

[skamikaze]

Almost forgot, although there were often grass berms in Virginia, they were planted in rows by a seeder, not spread so they made a pattern similar to this:

********************
********************
********************
********************
********************

The grass being in little clumps, set in rows. You couldn't walk on that without rolling your ankle (which I had just done the previous week and was still nursing back to health). So we opted for asphalt when we could, and concrete when we had to. I'd say the concrete in VA was the biggest contributor to people dropping out.

[Artyman]

My point in the captured prisoner statement was that all too often an armchair historian will make a statement that isn't supported by any real facts. An example being the guys in the photos you supplied. Just look at all those coats! We have all heard guys imply that there were few frocks. I like the three captured guys at G Burg. All three had a forced march in July to get there, but all three have knapsacks, one has a bed roll and a knapsack. Yet, the forum is full of ststements eluding to the notion that ConFeds threw them away.

Nice pics Cutr!

Harry

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

All too often...

But, IMHO, as good producers of research as well as cosumers of researcher, we need to on guard to counter against the Parable of the BLind Men and the Elephant Syndrome.

Meaning, a lad forms an opinion, and then grasping only the tail of the elephant shares that "An elephant is like a rope."

The unit time, place, circumstance, and context of images and artifiacts add to our ability to look at the historical and archeological extant evidence. Then having discovered what we believe, infer, and can argue and deduce or induce as the facts and the truth- form a resting point of our knowledge until the process produces new evidence to be weighed and applied.

IMHO, the "biggest problem" with Confederate reenacting is that so much of it grabs one part of the elephant and then runs with in all cases, all circumstances, and at all time (take for example the Ragged, Naked, Barefoot, Starving Confederate model.)
Or due to our Hobby Culture companies, regiments, and even armies of Confederate where no two men come close to looking like they served in the same unit at the same time as each man has pursued his own druthers and ability to shop at a vendor/maker department store full of random year, depot, and geographic peprsonal choices.

But they looking at Period images of Confederate prisoners and arguing that they do look like they served in the same unit at the same time as each man in the image is different
(not realizing that POW's can be artificial groupings or collections of men captured from dozens of units all around a battlefield and not just one company...)

Anyways, ;) :) I see the posting of CS prisoner images has gone slowly, so here is one from White House Landing, 1864:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/Michael1787/revolutionrx0036.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/Michael1787/revolutionrx0037.jpg


CHS

[reb64]

Hallo!

All too often...

Except for some of the custom hats, it looks as if they were just recently refitted. like to have seen a before/after photo of some of these men if so.