"CSA Appearance & Lack of Uniformity"

[tompritchett]

The following thread was started by a post by Viceroy66 on May-30-03.


Viceroy66 May-30-03, 06:23 AM (EST)

"CSA Appearance & Lack of Uniformity"

Gentlemen:

I was perusing some primary source materials (written during the war by actual eyewitnesses) since they are the best windows into the period, and I was surprised by some of the reports, especially the dates.

It is obvious from looking at period pictures that Confederates like Yankees were considerably battle worn by 1864, but according to those who were there, that appearnce was already evident years before.

This is not to imply that CSA reenactors should be attired in soiled rags, but should provoke further research into the subject, with reenactor modifications as indicated to add diversity of appearance.

I have a large collection of Union letter transcripts. If I can be of any assistance on this topic or any other, do not hesitate to message me directly at this address (TheBlackPrince66@aol.com). Your Most Obt. and Admiring Servant, Kappy

CSA - NO TWO DRESSED ALIKE:

Alfred J. JUCKETT, 2nd Michigan Vols: “Arlington Heights, Camp Mich. Wednesday Sept. 14, 1861...The shooting was all done by the South Carolina and Georgia men. Some of our boys met the men opposite us and shook hands and had quite a talk. They agreed not to fire on the pickets where they were and they stick to there word. The boys that saw them say they are very poorly dressed and they had not been paid since they had been in the Confederate army...Dec. 4, 1863...I tell you they are a rough looking set of men. Some of them are very ragged and the Generals are very poorly dressed...” (Permission Daniel Juckett & Family)

Albert Westgate, 4th MI Vols: "Nov 8, 1861...I tell you the rebels are a rough looking set of folks of every manner and description. Some of them are very ragged and filthy and the Generals are very poorly dressed..." (Private Collection)

R.Cruikshank, 123d NY: "...London Valley, Va., Nov. 19, 1862...We have two men in Camp who have escaped from the South who say that the Southern Army are almost destitute of clothing and provisions and can get but little from the South as they do not raise it..." (Cruikshank Papers)

David Hodges, 4th MA Vols: "Brashear City, La. April 20th 1863...After that we did not get a chance to rest at all as the prisoners were coming in all Tuesday morning. Soon we had eighty men and we were ordered to march them down to Brashear City, a distance of fourteen miles, which we did in a melting hot sun and dust four to six inches deep...The rebel prisoners were quite a bunch of buggers unrepentant in their treason. In this manner we were obliged to wait until Saturday morning when we departed successfully... They are poorly-clad, and no two are dressed alike. It strikes me that they would make a pretty poor appearance in dress parade. Their officers are dressed no better than our privates, and if their clothes denote their condition, I should say that they are about played out down here..." (private collection)

George H. Reynolds: "New Creek, Va. Nov. 24, 1862...When we came here we were expecting to be attacked by Stonewall Jackson...we took 350 hogs and 90 head of cattle and some 30 prisoners and destroyed their camp and other fixtures. They were a ragged and dirty set as they had neither hats or shoes..."

Joseph Warr, 2nd MN Vols: "Somerset, Ky., Feb 11, 1862...Our boys got lots of clothing and many of the boys now wear Secesh clothes. They were clothed every way different in home spun clothes. I think that we will get them whipped out now in short time..." (private collection)

Mr. Fuller, 5th LA Vols: "...No furloughs are allowed in the rebel army, and many of the them are without shoes or decent clothing. Their rations are, now, and have been for sometime, a quarter of a pound of bacon and a pint of flour or meal per day. But one skillet is allowed to each company in which to cook their food..."...There is no prospect as present of absolute famine at the South, though the soldiers of the Rebel Confederacy have to undergo great privations. They feel confident, however, of ultimately gaining their independence..." (Boston Traveller; May 18, 1863; pg. 2)

71st PA Vols: "Camp Observation, Md., Oct. 17, 1861...In the article of clothing we seem to have the advantage of the rebels, for their pickets are generally destitute of overcoats, and they appear to feel very sensitive about it. Our men tantalize them by holding up their own good coats, and asking them when they are going to have some. The only reply they receive is a volley of ?, and threats to take Washington.." (Berkshire County Eagle; October 24, 1861; pg. 2, col. 5.)

Henry Corbin, 114th NYV: "April 21, 1863...I have just seen some Confederate prisoners recently captured by our troops. What a sight they are. I tell you they are a hard looking lot of human beings. Most were without hats or shoes; some had not the cloth to cover their nakedness. Those that had so called uniforms, looked very destitute, dirty, and ragged with no two soldiers in the same regiment dressed alike. I sight like that I have never seen before..."

Henry Guy, 43rd MA Vols: "Newbern, Dec 23rd l862...Their appearance as a body is like an army of vagabonds that might be picked up in the streets of our cities. Their tattered clothes are of a gray mixture of homespun cloth; they mostly seem to have sandy, reddish complexion just like the soil to which they belong..."

YANKEE APPEARANCE: Not much better.

Thomas Dadswell, 111th NYV: "September 23, 1862...there were some of our men that were taken yesterday from here and they were in a very poor state of cloth. The poor boys were marched out lousy and almost bare-assed..."

W.W.D., 8th NY Cavalry: "Light House Point, on James River, July 14th, 1864...About noon that day we came in sight of a party of blue- jackets parading. To express our joy is more than I can do, though perhaps the reader can imagine what our feelings were. Many dropped on the road perfectly exhausted with hunger and fatigue. Such a forlorn set of men I think you never saw. Some without boots, their feet badly swollen, many without hats, others with their clothes torn to shreds, and some with their hands and faces badly scratched, all worn and wasted by hunger and fatigue. ..." (Letter to Rochester Daily Union & Advertiser)

[tompritchett]

The replies to this post are as follows:

* citations?, billwatson, Jun-01-03, 05:56 PM, (6)
..* RE: CSA Appearance & Lack of Uniformity, hillrich, May-30-03, 03:44 PM, (1)
....o RE: CSA Appearance & Lack of Uniformity, Viceroy66, May-31-03, 10:44 AM, (3)
......+ RE: CSA Appearance & Lack of Uniformity, hillrich, May-31-03, 03:20 PM, (5)
....o RE: CSA Appearance & Lack of Uniformity, SCSecesh, May-30-03, 09:25 PM, (2)
.......+ RE: CSA Appearance & Lack of Uniformity, Viceroy66, May-31-03, 11:00 AM, (4)
..........# RE: CSA Appearance & Lack of Uniformity, Phil, Jun-02-03, 06:49 PM, (7)

Part I

billwatson Jun-01-03, 05:56 PM (EST)

6. "citations?"
In response to message #0

I note with interest that none of the "citations" you list also include any information about where anyone who wished to know more might find them.

Eagerly awaiting more information.

Bill Watson
Company I Mess
Potomac Legion



hillrich May-30-03, 03:44 PM (EST)

1. "RE: CSA Appearance & Lack of Uniformity"
In response to message #0

Hey Pard,

Well done Sir!

Your astute research has presented a direct and compelling challenge to a disturbing trend held by a growing number of Confederate reenactors who seem to have settled upon the notion that a pervasive uniformity and a snappy miltary appearance were the hallmarks of the principal armies of the Confederacy throughout the late unpleasantness.

Examples of this revisionist attitude are numerous but your humble scribe shall offer but a few to illustrate the aforementioned trend:

Jean cloth - VERY IN - to the point that taking the field in wool of any kind or color will mark a person as a "Farb" for life.

Appropriated federal gear/uniform parts - VERY OUT - one could wonder if the Camps of Instruction at the time cautioned against using battlefield booty in case a land torpedo might be attached to it.

Conformity - VERY IN - nothing conveys an aura of military efficiency and elan better than a squad of Marylanders or Arkansans looking very much like they were stamped out of a factory in B'mo or L'il Rock. Trouble is, the likelihood of the CS supply chain cranking out an endless stream of cloned militaria (AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART) in concert with a sustained capability for delivering same to the right place at the right time for the right people is highly suspect in the least.

Homespun garments and personal modifications - OUT - picture this, the mail can't git through so Aunt Mifalda's home sewn britches are a no-no but gobs of materiel from the Old North State are making their way right on through to the front despite frequent interruptions to the railway - and up unto the very end of hostilities to boot! Gadzooks and little chickens! Hey, I got some swampland in Florida to sell you! The Confederate postal system was the only danged thing that ran right through the whole war - even turned a profit, by thunder. Conversely, the only thing more damaging to the war effort besides a guy named Sherman was the overworked supply system.

Adherents of this modern perspective of the war seem to be missing the main point of the volumes of data about the Confederate war effort - that the courage and resourcefulness of the common soldier enabled the war to threaten a much larger and well-equipped enemy for four full years despite horrendous shortages in materiel and an almost criminal neglect of the means to transport what was needed to the men who were doing the fighting.

Consider instead, what the intervening hundred and forty-two years of a rapidly improving professional military presence in our country has done to our ability to place ourselves successfully in an era when logistical sciences were in their infancy and things very often took place or failed to take place at the whim of chance.

It is important to avoid the trap many historians (both professional and amateur) fall into. They see the occurrences of the past through the lens of the present and are quite unable to understand that their sight is even slightly impaired.

I commend you sir, for your forthright representation of an alternative view and for the canny use of anecdotal evidence to support it.

With a Steadfast Faith in the Dignity of Our Sovereign Nation, I Have the Honor, Sir, to Remain

Your Most Loyal and Obedient Correspondent

Richard Hill
Deo Vindice


Viceroy66 May-31-03, 10:44 AM (EST)

3. "RE: CSA Appearance & Lack of Uniformity"
In response to message #1

I commend you sir, for your forthright representation of an
>alternative view and for the canny use of anecdotal evidence
>to support it.

This is not anecdotal evidence. shame on you for not even knowing that.

If you would open your eyes and mind and read some Confederate letters, you will see their admissions of poverty. Doesn't take much brains to know that with the limited industrial base and Union blockade, Confederates weren't being reinformed in cloth and barely in weaponry.

A friend who reenacts Confederate suggests that you document when your company received new uniforms, etc before which battle.

The public notices the "Cookies" reenacting mid to late war and appearing like the boys of '61. In response, I told them I would post some eyewitness observations, but I thought they would either pass over everyone's head, like you Sir, or be ignored generally.


hillrich May-31-03, 03:20 PM (EST)

5. "RE: CSA Appearance & Lack of Uniformity"
In response to message #3

Dear Sir,

I sincerely regret that you should take umbrage at my reference to the evidence you have supplied in your otherwise well considered earlier post. My comment was meant in a purely complimentary way but it appears that you are entirely too intimately invovled with your subject to realize it.

The term "anecdotal evidence" does not imply shoddy research or lacking in value in terms of historicity. I intended no censure whatsoever and am quite taken aback that you should find it offensive in the least.

Your focusing on that particular phrase to the exclusion of all others, however, implies that you are a fledgling scholar in spite of the mature efforts you have managed thusfar, which may translate as a mere pedantic exercise. I am discouraged by that and offer my deepest condolence.

Continue your work by all means, dear Sir, but know that it will take a great deal of intense research to alter in the slightest way the perspective of modernity that pervades the minds of most reenactors and their accompanying notional sense of the nature of things during the era of our mutual interest.

I somewhat begrudgingly remain, Sir,

Your Obedient Correspondent,

Richard Hill


SCSecesh May-30-03, 09:25 PM (EST)

2. "RE: CSA Appearance & Lack of Uniformity"
In response to message #1

I guess looking at company returns that show 50 jackets and 30 pair of trousers (for example) being issued, would not indicate to you that uniformity was there in a company. These returns exist for many though not all companies. Does that mean that at times the "ragged rebel" image wasn't true? Of course not, but to discount military returns for Confederate uniforms and accouterments because of a handful of personal accounts, seems even more ridiculous. Trains ran! Goods were delivered. The records are there!
The real issue with the mixed uniforms is likely the company with the Columbus jacket alongside a Richmond III right in front of the spiffy battleshirt being lead by the Captain in a "common shell" (whatever that is???) at a 1862 based event!!

[tompritchett]

Part II to the replies is as follows:


Viceroy66 May-31-03, 11:00 AM (EST)4. "RE: CSA Appearance & Lack of Uniformity"
In response to message #2

>>The real issue with the mixed uniforms is likely the company
>with the Columbus jacket alongside a Richmond III right in
>front of the spiffy battleshirt being lead by the Captain in
>a "common shell" (whatever that is???) at a 1862 based >event!!

Unfortunately, that is the conglomeration of appearances that seems to have existed very early in the war if we believe the writings of those who were there and who are writing during the war iteself. (As opposed to postwar regimentals and coffee table books).

Those who claim "uniformity" should be able to produce official records from their unit documenting when uniforms were replaced and before which battle(s). Most won't have to worry because there will be little CSA documentation of replacement for cloth after early 1863 (unless taken from Yankee stores).

However, I don't think you have to go quite that far as giving a complete mix of uniforms in a company. From a spectator perspective headgear is most noticeable and easiest to manipulate for the reenactor. A more soiled, scruffy appearance not only suggest hard campaigning and fighting, but the lack of resupply reinforces the underdog persona of the Confederate hero.

I posted these eyewitness reports, and I have seen over the years dozens of others including Confederate, because of friends of mine who are spectators and have complained about that aspect. They lamented about the fake appearances which to them, and primary source materials, are inconsistent with the period being reenacted.

I was only trying to help, but of course there is anways someone (not you) with paranoia as characterized the gentleman before you and his cretinous and silly references to "anecdotal" reports.

I am thinking about switching to a CSA impression and welcome the opportunity because of the latitude and versatility


Phil Jun-02-03, 06:49 PM (EST)

7. "RE: CSA Appearance & Lack of Uniformity"
In response to message #4

>Those who claim "uniformity" should be able to produce
>official records from their unit documenting when uniforms
>were replaced and before which battle(s). Most won't have to
>worry because there will be little CSA documentation of
>replacement for cloth after early 1863 (unless taken from
>Yankee stores).


There's actually mountains of it that you're ignoring. Did Columbus stop making uniforms in 1863? Are you forgetting that what is called the third variety of jacket issued by the depot at Richmond was not even around in early 1863? Neither were Peter Tait uniforms, Mobile depot uniforms, Department of Alabama jackets, Mystery jackets, and several others. The blue gray cloth imported from England referred to as "the Confederate uniform color" by USN blockading vessels had just recently made its first entry into the Trans-Mississippi by early 1863, and was soon to come to the East as well. Ever picked up a copy of Echoes of Glory? Look for the blue gray wool. It's all over that book. Come to think of it, all those garments in there would have to be fakes if your theory were anywhere near correct. Almost all were not even around in early 1863, and shouldn't they all have been worn out anyhow?


>I posted these eyewitness reports, and I have seen over the
>years dozens of others including Confederate, because of
>friends of mine who are spectators and have complained about
>that aspect. They lamented about the fake appearances which
>to them, and primary source materials, are inconsistent with
>the period being reenacted.


Forgive me for being rude, but friends who are spectators complaining about something they likely know little to nothing about means very little to me. I wouldn't call the citations in the original post credible research. It looks more like someone picked a position, then looked only in a few places for sources (that are nearly entirely opinions) that backed it up, all the while ignoring oceans of other sources stating actual facts, and also ignoring the surviving material evidence.

Phil Graf

[creel]

Reading thru the post given does it seem a little odd that many have same sounding words? Some almost the same words for instance:



Alfred J. JUCKETT, 2nd Michigan Vols: “Some of them are very ragged and the Generals are very poorly dressed...”

Albert Westgate, 4th MI Vols: " Some of them are very ragged and filthy and the Generals are very poorly dressed..."


Then:

Joseph Warr, 2nd MN Vols: "Somerset, Ky., Feb 11, 1862...Our boys got lots of clothing and many of the boys now wear Secesh clothes. They were clothed every way different in home spun clothes.


Most comments say poor or dirty cloths, then we read yanks are stealing their cloths to wear????

[ewtaylor]

Reading thru the post given does it seem a little odd that many have same sounding words? Some almost the same words for instance:



Alfred J. JUCKETT, 2nd Michigan Vols: “Some of them are very ragged and the Generals are very poorly dressed...”

Albert Westgate, 4th MI Vols: " Some of them are very ragged and filthy and the Generals are very poorly dressed..."


Then:

Joseph Warr, 2nd MN Vols: "Somerset, Ky., Feb 11, 1862...Our boys got lots of clothing and many of the boys now wear Secesh clothes. They were clothed every way different in home spun clothes.


Most comments say poor or dirty cloths, then we read yanks are stealing their cloths to wear????

It goes back to the time specific thing. The CS troops near Somerset had been in winter camp before the battle. Maybe the other CS troops had been campaigning?
it just depends.
ew taylor

[NC5thcav]

The offiicial records show pretty strong evidence for somewhat of a uniform appearence. The "ragged rebel" idea needs to go away, at least for most time periods. Most people who buy into this idea beleive that the war destroyed the souths ability to produce uniforms and equipment. Yet official returns form the ANV from mid 1864 till January of '65 show that they were issued well over 100,000 jackets and over 140,000 pairs of pants. At this time the ANV numbered app. 67,000 men at most. The state of Georgia issued 26,000 more jackets. These returns do not include clothing supplied to North Carolina troops by their state. Considering how many North Carolina troops were in the ANV and how well the NC supply system worked, that should be many more uniforms. If the Confederate soldiers were so ragged, what was happening to all these uniforms? And notice I said issued, not produced. The clothing was making it to the troops as well. The Confederate quartermaster system was just getting into high gear by 1864. By this time large quantities of English kersey were also being run through the blockade. Official record show large quanitites on hand and Union records show large quantities on captured blockade runners. All surviving RD IIIs are made from kersey. If the RD III was the standard issue jacket to the ANV, that would mean a high level of uniformity.

[ewtaylor]

The offiicial records show pretty strong evidence for somewhat of a uniform appearence. The "ragged rebel" idea needs to go away, at least for most time period.

There is as much strong evidence for the ragged rebel as the uniform confederate. Uniforms did not last long and many soldiers supplemented worn out clothing with home goods. If you don't want to believe what the vets wrote after the War (some people believe its a "lost cause" excuse) in their memoirs, then look at diaries and letters written DURING the war. I'm not saying they were ragged continously, and I'm not saying they were uniformed continously, I'm saying time specific.
ew taylor

[NC5thcav]

I somewhat agree. Thats why I said most of the time. Most people don't understand the time specific idea. At times, such as Sharpsburg, the more ragged the better. The problem I see is that many think that was the way Confederate soldiers always looked. As is the case with anything regarding the war, it depends on time and place. I'm just saying that there was a far greater amount of uniformity than most people would think.

[NC5thcav]

These accounts concern the Army of Tennessee. Again, they are place and time specific, but prove a good point.

A period description of uniforms in the 1st Missouri Brigade may refer to this type, in light of the Vicksburg jacket identified to the 1st Missouri Infantry, and the Oklahoma example perhaps identified to the 2nd Missouri. In January 1863, while encamped near Grenada, Mississippi, "there was a suit of uniform issued to every man in the Briggade [sic]. Grey Pants, grey Jackets & grey Caps. The collars & cuffs of the Jackets are trimed [sic] with light blue." (Phillip T. Tucker, The South's Finest: The First Missouri Confederate Brigade from Pea Ridge to Vicksburg (Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Publishing Co., Inc., 1993), page 103; Phillip Thomas Tucker, Westerners in Gray: The Men and Missions of the Elite Fifth Missouri Infantry Regiment (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., Inc., 1995), p. 108 (the original source is the diary of Lt. George W. Warren, in the collection of George W. Warren IV, Montpelier, VA)


Another period account described uniforms issued in Mississippi in late 1862, similar to those issued to the Missouri Brigade during the same time period. The following description of troops in Gen. Lloyd Tilghman's division were written by John K.Farris, surgeon of the 41st Tennessee Regt.

"Camp Cold Water near Holly Springs, Mississippi
Sunday, October 26, 1862
......I returned from Holly Springs about sunset, and when I got to the Regt., I found the boys all in Uniform which they had drawn. Their pants were all sky blue; their coats grey round about, with cuffs and collars trimmed with blue. Grey caps for all. This will add much to their appearance on the field though, taken their uniforms all into consideration, it is quite common and coars."

November 2, 1862 near Holly Springs, Mississippi
"Gen Tighlman's Division, much the largest of the two, made quite a fine appearance. They were all dressed and equipped exactly alike. They had on grey Caps and coats with sky blue pants. The coats are round abouts - the cuffs and collar trimmed with blue."

("Letters to Mary - The Civil War Diary of John Kennerly Farris." Transcribed by Shirley Farris Jones, edited and annotated by John Abernathy Smith. Franklin County Historical Review, Vol. XXV (1994). pp. 45-46, 53 (Franklin County Historical Society, Winchester, Tennessee)
Thanks to Larry Shields for sending me these accounts.

Both of these accounts are from "Confederate 'Columbus Depot' Jackets, The Material Evidence" by Geoffrey R. Waldon and can be found at http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/1864/cd/cdjacket.htm

I know these are just two instances, but it describes whole brigades wearing stndard, conforming uniforms.

[bill watson]

Just noting I never got directions to the original sources. It is very fine to list a dozen or so alleged quotes and attribute a couple to defunct newspapers, but where's the other 10 and where, in fact, are the copies of the newspapers?

It struck me at the time that there was a high degree of potential for this to be very elaborate and well done flame bait to poke a stick in the eye of the folks who were learning more about Confederate supply systems and how they worked, and who might have been seen as concluding more than the evidence supported about "uniformity" in Confederate ranks.

The broad strokes for me are pretty simple: Confederates rush off to war in state militia uniforms and keep them even after being mustered into "national" service; as the summer of 1861 unrolls, money is issued so regiments can purchase uniforms on their own, but it's not a good system; nobody takes anything too terribly seriously after Manassas because after all the Yankees are whipped and things will end soon; suddenly it's spring 1862 and the Yankees have appeared with a massive new army. The confederates are in tatters because nobody paid attention to logistics. They're also ready to disband, and have to have a conscription law to keep the armies intact. After that they take uniform and equipment supply much seriously but are always behind, because of the initial lack of focus; very often it is impossible to refit entire regiments, so the men worst in need are re-outfitted from time to time with whatever is at hand, producing a mottled appearance across companies and regiments. And somewhere in 1864, Breckinridge takes over the logistics of Confederate supply as the last, desperate Secretary of War, takes names and kicks butt, and even out of relative chaos, better supply evolves for the material that is on hand. The scandalous, deeply troubling fact that materiel was on hand in depots while men were freezing in Tennessee that winter is one reason they put Breckinridge in there, to straighten out a bureaucracy that forgot why it existed. There is just little food to be shipped, but dwindling ranks and a falling back on supply bases means the Confederate army in Virginia, at the end, has better access to most materiel than, possibly, any time during the war, especially uniforms and shoes. Not necessarily in other theatres where all the armies were on the move. In those cases, it seemed like everyone was in tatters, including Sherman's men.

Really broad strokes that serve as nothing more than a framework against which to measure new information as it comes in.

It is really tough to argue against the availability of decent uniforms at least in the Richmond theatre in 1865 when you look at the Confederate dead in the Petersburg trenches. Muddy, yes, but most of the photographs show fellows in quite good uniforms, not torn or worn or frazzled or patched. That is not to say there was uniformity -- surely just the tremendous variety of uniform types made during the war makes that unlikely -- but just as certainly: not ragged, by any means.

Anyway, we never did get to the bottom of things, and did we ever hear from Viceroy again?

[marylandreb]

Les Jensen wrote an article almost 20 years that debunks the "Ragged Rebel" of the Lost Cause apologists. Both sides would have appeared ragged on campaign far from Supply lines....Sherman's Bummers come to mind. However when Confederate soldiers were close to Confederate Depots they were well clothed. One only need to look at Maryland Confederate troops whose state didn't furnish their supplies and they were noted thoughout the war for their Natty attire and esprit de corps. Old legends die hard.



http://military-historians.org/company/journal/confederate/confederate-1.htm

[NC5thcav]

Les Jensen's article is where most of the information in my first post came from. Anyone even considering reenacting should read that article before they buy their first piece of equipment.

[marylandreb]

Les Jensen's article is where most of the information in my first post came from. Anyone even considering reenacting should read that article before they buy their first piece of equipment.


correct Derek, and the companion to that article was one written by Ross Kimmel that dealt with Maryland Confederate uniforms. Both give you a well rounded view of how Confederate soldiers in general were clothed.

[bill watson]

Breckinridge became Sec of War in 1865, my error.

[marylandreb]

I apologize...I left off the 2nd and 3rd part of the article. It can be accessed from the first link at the bottom.

http://military-historians.org/company/journal/confederate/confederate-2.htm

part 3

http://military-historians.org/company/journal/confederate/confederate-3.htm

[Tom Scoufalos]

It struck me at the time that there was a high degree of potential for this to be very elaborate and well done flame bait to poke a stick in the eye of the folks who were learning more about Confederate supply systems and how they worked, and who might have been seen as concluding more than the evidence supported about "uniformity" in Confederate ranks.


That sure could be. I am still amazed at "Viceroy66"'s incredably venomous responses to Richard Hill's two postings. Mr. Hill's first post especially was completely (and highly) complimentary, and I can't see how anyone with at least a secondary education could misinterpret that the way "Viceroy" apparantly did. I had to re-read that, like, three times to see that it was really the origional poster responding in such an inscensed fashion, so incredulous was I. The guy almost sounds unhinged ("silly and cretinous"?!?). And the references ARE anicdotal...they are anecdotes written by the observers, which is literally what that means...and do not consist of any kind of quantifiable, reproduceable, or objectively demonstrable data.

Weird.

[ewtaylor]

“Morgan’s command came in about 11 am Thursday, Sept 4. A nasty, dirty looking set they were, wore no uniform but were dressed in greay and butternut jeans or anything else they could pickup, but they were not so dirty and mean looking as Kirby Smith’s. His men looked like the tag, rag, and bobtail of the earth and as if they hadn’t been near water since Fort Sumter fell.

Mr. Morgan’s officers dressed in gray or black and wearing different kinds of flat hats and feathers with cockades or streamers, the men in clothes of various colors only being uniform in respect to dirt, none or very few having haversacks or blankets and armed with different kinds of guns, but decorated like their officers with cockades, streamers, or little flags in their hats. The horses of both officers and men were very fine and adorned much like their riders.”

A Union Woman in Civil War Kentucky

The Diary of Frances Peter

Miss Peter was a teenager during the War and died about 1864. She describes the CS occupation of Lexington, Ky, very well and is a MUST book for those attending Perryville this year. Her account of CS soldiers wearing Federal blue trousers is very funny. I'll post it later. The above account describes the Cavalry of John Hunt Morgan for those of you not familiar with the War in Kentucky.

EW Taylor

[ewtaylor]

This was written on Thursday, Sept 18, 1862.
“When our men were being sent off we couldn’t help comparing them, so clean and gentlemanly looking and looking so well fed to the half starved, half clothed, dirty wretches who guarded them. It looks so strange to see some of the dirty rebels dressed in our soldiers uniforms and they seem ashamed of it too, for if any one remarks about it they hang their heads and hurry by pretending not to hear.”

And this on Oct 4 1862

“A great many of the secesh soldiers wear the clothes that were found at the quartermaster’s and the hospitals when our own men left. The Union ladies teased them everywhere they went, about the “Lincoln britches” and wearing the “livery of Lincoln hirelings” and would pretend sometimes to think they were our men and ask them if they had been paroled and when they were going to be exchanged. One day when a lady had teased one in this way he turned to her and said Ma’am if you knew how much these pants cost us you wouldn’t call them “Lincoln britches” for we didn’t get them for nothing. We had to pay $5 a pair to the quartermaster and so we have a good right to them. A good many of them have had black stripes put down the sides.
The Diary of Frances Peter


Ew taylor

[NC5thcav]

These descriptions go back to the time and place idea. The Army of Tennessee had quite a bit of captured Union supplies going into Kentucky. Also most of the descriptions in the original posters statements were from early to mid war. His second post reads as if the begining of the war was when uniformity in the Confederate army was at its peak.

[ewtaylor]

These descriptions go back to the time and place idea.
The Army of Tennessee had quite a bit of captured Union supplies going into Kentucky. Also most of the descriptions in the original posters statements were from early to mid war. His second post reads as if the begining of the war was when uniformity in the Confederate army was at its peak.
Yes, just like every other scenerio. And to clarify:
The AOT was called the Army of Mississippi (under bragg) and Kirby Smith's men were named the Army of Kentucky. After the Ky campaign they were renamed the Army of Tn. They were not supplied until after the campaign. They supplied themselves during the campaign. I think alot of you guys should get the new book out right now about CS uniforms. Its advertised in the sutler section. It will clear up alot for some and reeinforce others.
ew taylor

[NC5thcav]

Sir you are correct about the AoT, my apologies. That new book is on my is wishlist.

[Tarky]

Hello, Could not get in to post for a couple of days. Very interesting. As I remember, the uniformity issue in Reenactment units started, correct me, during the 125th Anniversaries. Quartermaster Records show that both Armies the ANV and the AOT were issued thousands of new uniforms the Fall of 1862. Light blue trousers, gray jackets, and caps were the issued items. The imported English gray cloth was very prevalent in late 62' and for the rest of the War in the ANV.
Many make the mistake of reading one account or two from two different years or campaigns of the Civil War, and from only a few references arrive at an unsupported opinion. Any statement is considered an opinion, until you can back it up with facts, then your opinion can be categorized as a supported fact.
A quote from my book states that the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee were blessed with times of clothing abundance and times of rags and barefeet. This statement can be supported with facts and is not an opinion. The ragged Rebel was seen at the Battles of Anitetam, Gettysburg, Perryville, and Nashville, and at Appomatox. The reasons were usually logistical, being on the march and away from their Depots.
Tom Arliskas

[Phil]

Many make the mistake of reading one account or two from two different years or campaigns of the Civil War, and from only a few references arrive at an unsupported opinion.

Tom Arliskas

Hence the need for research, impressions based on the army as it was at the time of the event, and the abandonment of generalizations. Yes, there were "ragged rebels" and there were sometimes entire regiments clothed alike, sometimes even in the same campaign.

[RebelCapt]

Thanks to everyone for pointing out the Les' work. It has a been a valuble resource to our unit for a few years now. The only enlisted Jacket we can actually document, by two examples, to Maryand Cavalry is the depot 3 of blue gray kersey. However common sense tells us that many were most likley supplied and outfitted by other depot garments such as jean depot 2s. So we use Les' article as a basis for any jacket a fellow wants to wear that is not a depot 3. Most records indicate that the ANV actually had a rather plentyful supply of new clothing - this leads many to beleive the unit should be attired in uniform fashion. Many overlook the simple math that while resupplies were common, it was rare that enough of the same jacket were issued to an entire unit at the same time. A unit often was issued, say 100 jackets for 500 men. It would then make sense that large chunks of men had similar uniforms, but an entire unit would not match due to various issues and or levels of age and wear on older outfits.

[Tarky]

Hence the need for research, impressions based on the army as it was at the time of the event, and the abandonment of generalizations. Yes, there were "ragged rebels" and there were sometimes entire regiments clothed alike, sometimes even in the same campaign.

Correct, Whole Brigades might have been issued new uniforms from their own State Depots, like North Carolina or Georgia. Longstreets Division was issued new uniforms out of Richmond, just prior to leaving for Tennessee to reinforce General Bragg at Chicamauga. Went to rags during the Knoxville Campaign, and were re-issued all new uniforms made in North Carolina for the Wilderness campaign.
But, each soldier in the Confederacy had their own stories to tell on how they kept themselves clothed. Some took clothing and some never took a piece of clothing from the Confederate Government. Tom

[reb64]

My God, this issue of fed sky blue trousers caused a civil war of its own throughout the now trans miss and aot reenactors. the dogma came out that wearing them would not be tolerated, now documentation is presented where the confederates wore them at perryville? this is hilarious and great ammunition to be a real rebel at the event and wear them!

[Doug Cooper]

My God, this issue of fed sky blue trousers caused a civil war of its own throughout the now trans miss and aot reenactors. the dogma came out that wearing them would not be tolerated, now documentation is presented where the confederates wore them at perryville? this is hilarious and great ammunition to be a real rebel at the event and wear them!

The documentation that they were worn at Perryville is and always has been well known. The prohibition on wearing federal uniform trousers was for the Corinth event only, as there is no documentation of that occuring. If you want to be a "real rebel" at Perryville you might want to wear them if you are portraying a member of Cleburne's command, which captured them at Richmond during the march north.

[marylandreb]

Thanks to everyone for pointing out the Les' work. It has a been a valuble resource to our unit for a few years now. The only enlisted Jacket we can actually document, by two examples, to Maryand Cavalry is the depot 3 of blue gray kersey. However common sense tells us that many were most likley supplied and outfitted by other depot garments such as jean depot 2s. So we use Les' article as a basis for any jacket a fellow wants to wear that is not a depot 3. Most records indicate that the ANV actually had a rather plentyful supply of new clothing - this leads many to beleive the unit should be attired in uniform fashion. Many overlook the simple math that while resupplies were common, it was rare that enough of the same jacket were issued to an entire unit at the same time. A unit often was issued, say 100 jackets for 500 men. It would then make sense that large chunks of men had similar uniforms, but an entire unit would not match due to various issues and or levels of age and wear on older outfits.


Have been fortunate enough to meet Les years ago and while he's a gracious gentleman...I put his knowledge of Confederate uniform's up against anybody else's. Not trying to slight anyone, just he's forgotten more than most of us will ever know.:D

[Phil]

My God, this issue of fed sky blue trousers caused a civil war of its own throughout the now trans miss and aot reenactors. the dogma came out that wearing them would not be tolerated, now documentation is presented where the confederates wore them at perryville? this is hilarious and great ammunition to be a real rebel at the event and wear them!

The problem comes from those who read that there were instances where this happened and think it's fine to wear them everywhere.

[Lwhite64]

Basically, this just goes to stress how important research is. I would say that it is highly doubtful that any Confederate unit went into battle more than once looking the same way. Also in regards to this "No two dressed a like" vs "uniformity", I would say that both are correct to certain degrees, there are plenty of accounts from Chickamauga refering to the mix matched appearance of the AOT, but here and there you do see references to units with parts of the uniforms that do match.

Lee

[Phil]

What has been brought up often is the issues to the "most needy," which can also show up as units of 500 men receiving 100 jackets and 200 pr. trousers. The effect would be common pieces of clothing and equipment scattered through the ranks, so that no one was necessarily identical, but neither was everyone completely different. Personally, I think the latter issue is a bigger problem for CS reenactors. You've got to wonder how among 5 or 10 men, no piece of gear is seen twice.

[ewtaylor]

Basically, this just goes to stress how important research is. I would say that it is highly doubtful that any Confederate unit went into battle more than once looking the same way. Also in regards to this "No two dressed a like" vs "uniformity", I would say that both are correct to certain degrees, there are plenty of accounts from Chickamauga refering to the mix matched appearance of the AOT, but here and there you do see references to units with parts of the uniforms that do match.

Lee
On June 30 the 26th NC Inf received new uniforms, equip., and pay. When they faced off against a Michigan unit of the Iron Brigade, on July 1, the Michigan boys thought they were about to engage "green" troops because of the 26th's "new" appearance.
ew taylor

[NC5thcav]

My God, this issue of fed sky blue trousers caused a civil war of its own throughout the now trans miss and aot reenactors. the dogma came out that wearing them would not be tolerated, now documentation is presented where the confederates wore them at perryville? this is hilarious and great ammunition to be a real rebel at the event and wear them!

Keep in mind that just because a unit was issued light blue trousers doesn't mean they were federal sky blues. More often than not they probably would have been Confederate manufacture trousers. Just look in EOG for examples.

[bob 125th nysvi]

the South certainly issued what it could to its troops and that included millions of uniforms by the end of the war. But each unifrom came from somewhere and each manufacturers colors would have been slightly different to radically different. Even inside the same manufacturers supply stream dye lots would have been different.

So 'butternut' would not have been one nice clean color on an artist's palette.

Also it appears that CW soldiers relied a great deal on home for accessories like shirts, socks, hats and I suspect shoes. (Something like: Dearest Wife we are very short of shoes here and if you could send me that old pair of boots I left in the shed I'd greatly appreciate it.)

Also even within units soldiers would have been issued different items at different times to replace worn out items.

So there would have been a great deal of variety.

I think where the reb reenactors fall out of authenticity is in the frivolity of their outfits.

The vast majority of reb privates came from laborers and subsistance farmers. Not an economic group that would have had a lot of fancy items. And if a husband/son owned a fancy shirt or vest I'm sure mom would have carefully lovingly packed it away for the day her man/boy came home.

So the items from home would have been a lot plainer (unbleached muslin or cotton shirts for example) particularly once things got tough.

By the end of the war many privates were probably down to one shirt and pair of socks. Plain more likely than fancy

And also guys, if you're all wearing feathers in your hats it is no longer unique. Take turns or something unless you're with Gen S. Waite.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

[reb64]

Keep in mind that just because a unit was issued light blue trousers doesn't mean they were federal sky blues. More often than not they probably would have been Confederate manufacture trousers. Just look in EOG for examples.

I gathered from the posts here that many of Cleburnes boys had captured fed trousers, not just conf manufactured blue. I have never wore them as part of a confederate uniform fearing ostracizing, but i may do it this event.

[Tarky]

I gathered from the posts here that many of Cleburnes boys had captured fed trousers, not just conf manufactured blue. I have never wore them as part of a confederate uniform fearing ostracizing, but i may do it this event.

Research, Read, Research, read some more,take notes, keep notebooks, find someone who does do research, ask to see his, find out how to research and use those sites and repositories, visit museums, ask to see original garments if you can, go to Civil War shows. Read, and research again, and then study again to be sure your research is sound.

Making a statement that I am going to wear my Federal trousers to the next event, unless it is the Battle of Perryville, and your in the Kentucky Brigade, is incorrect.

I dont want to be charged with any blatant pandering, BUT- you must read MY BOOK-- take notes, and then re-read it again, ask questions, then put together your impression for a particular Campaign or year of the Civil War.My book was just a collection of notes I gathered, and is not the defintitive word on Confederate clothing. Each soldier and Regiment had their own story to tell on how they kept themselves clothed.-- As researchers all we can is present what we have found-- and put that information into some kind of readable form. Taking one day or month of the Civil War, {perfect example, Cleburn's men wore blue Federal trousers captured at Richmond} and using that to wear Federal trousers to every event is just plain wrong!!!! The Western Confederates had few chances to capture Federal uniforms, and after January, 1863, if caught in full Federal uniform you could be shot or hung as a spy even if captured duing a battle.

Tom Arliskas author Cadet Gray and Butternut Brown

[bill watson]

I thought this was interesting. Just more information:

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Confederate_Uniforms.htm

[NC5thcav]

I gathered from the posts here that many of Cleburnes boys had captured fed trousers, not just conf manufactured blue. I have never wore them as part of a confederate uniform fearing ostracizing, but i may do it this event.

Perryville is an exception to the rule. So is A.P. Hill's boys at Sharpsburg. It did happen, but the "just buy Federal sky blues they'l work for both" attitude is what I was refering to. Mr. Arliskas has hit this pretty well.

[Lwhite64]

From all of my research into uniforms here is a listing a notations of the few times main force Western Confederates got captured Fed goods.

1. Shiloh, keep in mind this would have included early war Fed items, so possible dark blue pants, state issues, etc.

2. Richmond, KY, captured Federals stores in Richmond, and also from POWs who had been in service less than a week.

3. Murfreesboro.

4. Jackson, MS.

5. Chickamauga, although the Federals were in rough shape, captures would amount mostly to Hats, equipage, blankets and some shoes.

6. Kennesaw Mountain

7. Spring Hill, lots of shoes, blankets, and overcoats captured.

8. Franklin.

Forgot to mention Perryville, limited time.

[NC5thcav]

Thanks Lee. That should narrow down some senarios where they would be appropriate. I always love information on the AoT.

[Lwhite64]

Another thing to note about the pick ups of Federal clothing, from most of the references that I have seen, with some exceptions, trousers seem to be the least picked up item, for obvious reasons. Think about this as well, the clothing picked up at Shiloh would have been gone by the time the troops left North Mississippi for Tennessee and Kentucky, the clothing picked up at Richmond and Perryville would have been wearing thin by Murfreesboro, plus you have the first major issue of Depot clothing to the AoT just before Murfreesboro. The clothing picked up at Murfreesboro would be gone by the time of the Tullahoma Campaign, the clothing picked up at Chickamauga would be gone by the beginning to the Atlanta Campaign...There are only three instances where I would say that some troops would have been wearing Fed Sky blues and then it is LIMITED, they being the troops from Richmond KY, Cleburne's Brigade, Smith's Brigade, etc at Perryville. Parts of Breckinridge's Division and Walker's Division at Chickamauga and the Confederates at Missionary Ridge and Lookout Mountain.

Lee