Officers in the field

[cosgood]

Chums,

One of my favorite subjects of research is of officers on the campaign. To me it seems that as reenactors when portraying an officer, you want to be noticed as most people portraying an officer will be wearing shoulder straps. However the more and more research I do, the more first hand accounts and photo's I dig up proving the opposite. As early as 1862 you read accounts of officers wearing enlisted clothing for field service, as to not stand out. You also see photo's of generals wearing enlisted blouses on the campaign. One excellent photo which shows a mix of both subdued rank, and regular officers uniforms can be seen on this page here http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/historic/reghist/civil/infantry/60thInf/60thInfPhotoCourtMartialMillerVII_181.htm

This photo is taken post the battle of Gettysburg. Another excellent image is of Capt. James Young 60th NY, in Gregory Coco's book the Civil War Infantry Man. Capt. Young's photo was taken in 1863, and shows him in complete enlisted uniform, with only the officers belt, sword and haversack to Identify him as an officer. He is wearing no rank, 13" tall boots,blanket roll and a black civilian hat.

Another interesting photo of an officer of the 122nd NY can be found here http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/historic/reghist/civil/infantry/122ndInf/122ndInfPersonMarks.htm

Capt. Morton Lewis Marks is in all civilian attire except his regulation officers forage cap, no rank at all.

There's another good immage here http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/historic/reghist/civil/infantry/56thInf/56thInfPersonGowdy.htm

Capt. James Gowdy of the 56th NY, notice the commercial blouse with no rank and the civilian hat. His trousers appear to be enlisted, but its hard to tell.

Another famous immage 3 officers from the 105th Ohio show officers devoid of rank http://hometown.aol.com/jlowry3402/105ovi.html

Theres another photo in a book about the Gettysburg campaign, which I do not own and cant recall the title, but shows an officer of the 63rd PA on the march in a commercial blouse with no rank, a beat up what appears to be a dress hat, and carrying an enlisted haversack.

Another account read of an officer in the 86th NY, who drew from enlisted stores a pair of enlisted trousers from his cousin who was in the regiment. He owed his cousin the money for the trousers, however his cousin would be killed in action before he would see his money.

General orders issued in 1863 to the Army of the Cumberland, and General orders issued in 1864 to the Army of the Potomac, finally take note and condone the use of subdued rank insignia although it had been in use as far as we can tell as early as 1862.

So being that the info is out there, why do they make the regulations for events so that you have to wear rank insignia? We must remember 1 this was the personal preference of the officer(s), 2 its historically correct.

Myself personally I preder the enlisted uniform to that of the officers uniform for field service, it does not make me stick out (although theres no reall bullets flying) and it keeps my officers uniform nice for garrison, or permanent camp duty.

If anyone else has any immages to share as there is a ton out there, and I only nipped the tip of the ice berg with photo's please share them as well as your thoughts.

thanks,

[bill watson]

"So being that the info is out there, why do they make the regulations for events so that you have to wear rank insignia?"

Because in some worlds, there are, first, people who are preoccupied by this sort of thing to the point of obsession and, second, there are people who won't obey even pretend orders from a pretend officer unless the officer has "real" insignia.

There's several other ways to tell who the officer is, that's why there are positions in formations, and even in camp a stranger ought to be able to pick out the folks who are in charge pretty readily. But a sharpshooter 600 yards away is just going to see a bunch of people who look a lot alike, which apparently was the motivation for all this.

Good images.

[cosgood]

Bill,

Everything we do in this hobby is pretend :-) Unless someone has started events where they are shooting at each other. Anyhow if trying to go for the proper field look is being obsesive, wouldnt that make wanting everyone to wear forage caps the same thing? Or am I reading you wrong on this post?

[indguard]

While I found your photos unconvincing, there certainly is the various orders from the army to discuss. Now, I HAVE seen some Federal officers in our hobby, for instance, wear only the insignia on one shoulder (and not the whole strap, but just what ever would have appeared inside the strap commensurate with their rank).

I like it and would like to see more of it, especially from western reenactors.

But, my big question has always been, how much more common was this advice followed by the western Federal armies than the Eastern?

Also, it is well-known that several Confederate generals (AP Hill for instance) who did not wear the full, pomp and circumstance, uniform in the field.

So, I agree that we should portray officers with LESS ostentation in the field... that is, when we are doing events that portray times AFTER 1862.

My Colonel's uniform is a simple frock with the stars on the collar. No chicken guts, no special gilt. But, I do have one that I can use for early war with all that on it.

Now for a counterpoint (one that someone brought up above)...

What difference would it really make? Any soldier familiar with his organization can pretty quickly see who are officers on the other side, don't you think? Aside from them being the guys who DON'T have the big, long musket thingie, they are pointing and yelling alot!

I wonder if the hiding of rank really was effective from anything other than long range snipers? Or was it a psychological comfort for the officers who THOUGHT they were less of a target and therefore might be more zealous in their duties with that "protection"?

Any thoughts on that?

Yours, W.T.Huston

[cosgood]

Good points. And to the effectiveness I have no clue, since we are never truly put into that type of position in reenacting, I guess we will never grasp the whole scale of it.

From an book about an officer in the 10th Maine John Meade Gould, he mentions at the battle of Cedar mountain, of officers with hats with insiginia on them, or tall civilian hats being picked off and that he was glad he was wearing only a privates uniform.

This was August of 1862, so the use of wearing privates cloths or using no rank was in use in 1862, to what numbers we will never know. With the lack of field photo's of officers, we will never grasp the whole picture of how common the practice was, but there are still enough photo's and personal accounts, that suggest it may have been more common than we think.

I have also viewed a few original officers coats that have the subdued rank on the collars and shoulders. First being a Majors frock coat from the 149th NY, which is located in the Veterans memorial arena in Syracuse. The second coat being a commercial blouse Id'd to Capt. Edwin Dillingham which dates to 1863, as he was promoted major by the end of 1863. This coat is housed in the collection at west point.

Another photo I had forgot to mention is in a book on the 124th NY by Chuck Larroca, it shows a bust view of a Capt. with the diminished rank on his shoulder.

Anyhow I am not advocating that everyone should do this, but I believe that the use of enlisted clothing by officers in the field is underepresented. I have been using this approach since 1998 and will continue to do so, however I would love to see more accounts and images of this, just as more reference.

[skamikaze]

there is an officer i know who will remain annonymous who wears his dress hardee with two plumes out on the feild ALL THE TIME.

its things like that that i believe this post is aimed at. and i agree, officers should look only slightly less dirty than us enlisted and should carry equippage with them as though they were on campaign just like us.

[Ken]

The officer second from the right appears to be wearing a pleated blouse not unlike Buford was described as wearing during the battle of Gettysburg

[TheQM]

Don't forget a very practical consideration, Officers were expected to supply their own uniforms at their own cost. Those dress uniforms were expensive. It makes sense that officers would resort to enlistedmen's clothing or less expensive uniform items, such as the officer's sack coats you often see in photos. Same goes for rank, those shoulder boards ain't cheap!

In the Confederate service, it became almost impossible for the officers to clothe themselves. Provisions were made for officers to draw cloth or even finished enlisted clothing from the depots for their own use.

I have read that high ranking Confederate Officers kept rooms in Petersburg during the siege, where they would store their dress uniforms. They'd go and change clothing before trips into Richmond.

[ScottCross]

Casey,

I think the tintype you are thinking of is Captain James Young of the 60th New York Infantry, owned by Gettysburg National Military Park. Captain Young is wearing a slouch hat (with felt star Corps badge); enlisted fatigue blouse (with no visible rank insignia); enlisted trousers; civilian boots; officers sword belt with sword;officer's haversack; canteen (on the left shoulder); and a blanket roll on his right shoulder. It is a great image of an eastern officer in campaign attire.

[MStuart]

In the Confederate service, it became almost impossible for the officers to clothe themselves. Provisions were made for officers to draw cloth or even finished enlisted clothing from the depots for their own use.

I'm hardly a quartermaster specialist, but would that not make sense? Mid-war to the end, pay and cloth goods weren't exactly in great abundance in some areas. Would not a company to possibly even field grade officer in the CS army resort to cloth or clothing from the depots to clothe himself? Makes sense to me, not that that means anything.

Mark

[cosgood]

The officer second from the right appears to be wearing a pleated blouse not unlike Buford was described as wearing during the battle of Gettysburg

Ken,

Your right that is a pleated blouse, the officer is from the 137th NY. Also it appears the officer second from the left is wearing an enlisted blouse unbuttoned, its hard to tell, but it looks like its lined with a lighter color material.

[TJ Bartel]

They aren't enlisted sack coats. They are what is know as contract coats, usually 5 button fronts, and commonly had an outside breast pocket. They were common from early in the war ie Spring of '62 on. It really depended on the officer's preference, and sometimes for staff officers, what their commanding General wanted.
There probably should be more of them in re-enacting as they were prevelant.
And, I'm quite sure, more comfortable.
Just some ffod for thought.

[bill watson]

The five-button contract coats are enormously comfortable and practical. Useful pockets, positioned to be out of the way of the sword leathers and whatnot. Mine is dark blue kersey with a good lining, it's somehow quite warm in cool weather but not ridiculously hot in the summer. It is spacious enough to flop around and move air with a couple of buttons undone. Button it down and put a scarf around the collar and I'm comfortable down to 25 degrees or so. The lining seems to be a big factor in stopping the cold wind.

Nobody has mentioned this: Subdued rank is a huge improvement over shoulder boards when wearing a knapsack. I've torn two shoulder boards loose with the knapsack, they are ideally positioned to be in the way when you are putting it on and taking it off, especially when you are in a great tearing hurry. A colonel might not have to worry about a knapsack, but company officers did. Perhaps they were practical from many standpoints, and not just useful in confusing sharpshooters about who was an officer and who wasn't?

[cosgood]

They aren't enlisted sack coats. They are what is know as contract coats, usually 5 button fronts, and commonly had an outside breast pocket.

There are a few photo's of officers wearing enlisted sack coats, more common was the practice of officers wearing commercial blouses. All of the photo's I posted were of commercial blouses, however the photo of the Capt. in the 60th NY, he is definately wearing an enlisted sack coat, and you see some generals and other officers in various photo's doing this as well.

[Jim of the SRR]

There are a few photo's of officers wearing enlisted sack coats, more common was the practice of officers wearing commercial blouses. All of the photo's I posted were of commercial blouses, however the photo of the Capt. in the 60th NY, he is definately wearing an enlisted sack coat, and you see some generals and other officers in various photo's doing this as well.

Casey,

I beg to differ. If we are talking about this photo:
http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/historic/reghist/civil/infantry/60thInf/60thInfPhotoCourtMartialMillerVII_181.htm

Then the man on the left is wearing a Commercial coat and NOT and Enlisted coat. The coat has 5 buttons (one is under the belt) and it has a breast pocket (with something in it).

Regards,
Jim Butler
SCAR www.geocities.com/scar_civilwar
SRR www.geocities.com/saltriverrifles

[cosgood]

Jim,

I am not making reference to that photo, although the officer of the 102nd NY, appears to have an enlisted sack coat on that is unbuttoned and opened up. The photo I am refering to is in Gregory Coco's book the civil war infantry man. The photo is of Capt. James Young 60th NY, the photo is in the GNMP collection. I wish I had the picture to post on here, but do not. I was over at a friends house tonight that has that book and took another look at it, its an excellent image.

See Scott Cross's response to this post, as he posted what the image looks like as well, it is definately an enlisted sack coat.

[TimKindred]

The five-button contract coats are enormously comfortable and practical. Useful pockets, positioned to be out of the way of the sword leathers and whatnot. Mine is dark blue kersey with a good lining, it's somehow quite warm in cool weather but not ridiculously hot in the summer. It is spacious enough to flop around and move air with a couple of buttons undone. Button it down and put a scarf around the collar and I'm comfortable down to 25 degrees or so. The lining seems to be a big factor in stopping the cold wind.

Nobody has mentioned this: Subdued rank is a huge improvement over shoulder boards when wearing a knapsack. I've torn two shoulder boards loose with the knapsack, they are ideally positioned to be in the way when you are putting it on and taking it off, especially when you are in a great tearing hurry. A colonel might not have to worry about a knapsack, but company officers did. Perhaps they were practical from many standpoints, and not just useful in confusing sharpshooters about who was an officer and who wasn't?

Bill,

The easiest remedy for your strap-catching situation is this: Before you attach the shoulder straps, turn them over, undo the stitching and remove the pasteboard stiffener from the inside. Now that the straps are open, unfold the blue cloth tabs (you'll see what I'm talking about as soon as you do it) and pin those tabs to the coat. Now stitch around the straps, and use a sharp knife or small scisors to trim away the excess tab material. Voila! Shoulder straps they lay down properly like those you see in the images, and which will not rip off or catch knapsack straps so easily, if at all.

Casey,

I hear what you are saying, but the overwhelming majority of officer sack coats were commercial coats, even the one Grant was wearing at Appomattox CH. It's true enough that enlisted trousers, as well as enlisted cavalry pattern greatcoats, shirts and shoes/bootees were authorized for officers to draw "when on campaign" but when in garrison or winter quarters, I'd expect to see much more regulation clothing amongst them.

Although I also encourage officer-types to wear commercial blouses and such in the field, one ought not to stress too much the word "enlisted" regarding their clothing, lest you open the floodgates to the sort of person who bases his impression upon price, rather accuracy.

Respects,

Tim Kindred

[Altecfive]

Well I decided after all this debate of pulling my book that has over 4,000 photos of the civil war. Honestly, after looking through it I see more officers wearing shoulder boards, then those officers not wearing shoulder boards. This is including many late war photos that are in the book. Honestly to me this comes down to a debate between Western Theater and Eastern. Also, I think this comes down to what the unit you portray are doing. For instance, we portray the 95th PVI. I have yet to see a photo of an officer from the 95the PVI wearing anything but officer straps. Secondly on the enlisted trousers. I am sure they pulled them from time to time when they needed them. But, it is also very difficult in some of the photos to see if it is the regulation sky blue with dark blue piping, which was regulation by the civil war or if they were wearing enlisted trousers. I am not saying its not under represented in the field the variety that officers wore. BUT, we all could take a couple of photos and some sections of text that we read and go see thats what they did back then. Not always true.

[Rob Weaver]

There also seems to be a difference in clothing between company officers and staff officers. Not surprisingly, staff officers seem to prefer the exceptions and more ostentatious gear than do the company officers, who tend to wear their stuff a bit more in keeping with regulations.
There's also reenacting history to consider here, too. Although we don't like to talk about it, sometimes what we wear is influenced by what's in fashion among ourselves. Remember when everybody bloused their trousers? Then nobody bloused their trousers? Now you can but not on parade blouse your trousers? A long time ago, f**by officers would simply slap a pair of shoulder boards on their 4-button, wear any old cheap cavalry saber and clank around looking officious. To put an end to that reenactorism, units and individuals began to emphasize the frock, "correct sword and side arm,"etc. Did we swing too far? Well, isn't that what usually happens?

PS - That officer with not 1 but 2 plumes in his hat at Gettysburg - did he wear his frock like a bathrobe displaying his civilian vests? We nicknamed him the "Green Knight."

[cosgood]

Courtney,

Photo's dont always show the look of officers in the field. A friend of mine who has seen several officers groupings of original items noted that in each grouping there was a frock coat and a commercial sack ( so this being said most officers had 2 coats) one for field service, one for other occassions. On all the commercial sacks, there was no evidence of any shoulder straps ever being sewn on. Most photo's you find (even ones in the field) show a whole group of officers together, most have their frocks on, however this is decieving, as they are not on the front lines at the time, and most likely are wearing their nicer uniform for the picture. Just like modern military, they had their dress and fatigue uniforms.

[TheQM]

Bill,


Casey,


Although I also encourage officer-types to wear commercial blouses and such in the field, one ought not to stress too much the word "enlisted" regarding their clothing, lest you open the floodgates to the sort of person who bases his impression upon price, rather accuracy.

Respects,

Tim Kindred

Tim,

For a Confederate impression, I would say the use of enlisted men's clothing is quite appropriate, especially for company grade officers doing a mid to late war impression. At the very best, he'd be wearing a custom made uniform constructed from Government supplied cloth or modified civilian clothing sent from home. By mid-war, the cost of a dress uniform was out of the reach of all but the most affluent and/or high ranking Confederate Officers.

Not to mention, that any Confederate officer who got promoted from the ranks was going to have to wait a long time to procure a proper set of clothing. He couldn't just sent an order off to Brooks Brothers, like his Federal counterpart.

[bill watson]

Tim,

Thanks for the great tip on shoulder boards. I have learned, though, to never underestimate my ability to damage anything. :-)

[cosgood]

Tim,

For a Confederate impression, I would say the use of enlisted men's clothing is quite appropriate, especially for company grade officers doing a mid to late war impression. At the very best, he'd be wearing a custom made uniform constructed from Government supplied cloth or modified civilian clothing sent from home. By mid-war, the cost of a dress uniform was out of the reach of all but the most affluent and/or high ranking Confederate Officers.

Not to mention, that any Confederate officer who got promoted from the ranks was going to have to wait a long time to procure a proper set of clothing. He couldn't just sent an order off to Brooks Brothers, like his Federal counterpart.

Bill,

I measured up one such coat at Pamplin Park a few years ago. It was a Richmond Depot jacket id'd to Capt. Edward Marsh 4th NC Inf. Pg. 118 EOG. While most people looking at the photo would say its an RDII, after examining it, it looks to be privately tailored. The coat tapered quite a bit at the waist area, which is not common on the issued jackets. Plus the coat is made from English cloth, which I dont believe was being used for enlisted jackets at the time, plus had script I buttons. Anyhow an excellent example of a privately tailored jacket using the enlisted pattern.

[Altecfive]

Courtney,

Photo's dont always show the look of officers in the field. A friend of mine who has seen several officers groupings of original items noted that in each grouping there was a frock coat and a commercial sack ( so this being said most officers had 2 coats) one for field service, one for other occassions. On all the commercial sacks, there was no evidence of any shoulder straps ever being sewn on. Most photo's you find (even ones in the field) show a whole group of officers together, most have their frocks on, however this is decieving, as they are not on the front lines at the time, and most likely are wearing their nicer uniform for the picture. Just like modern military, they had their dress and fatigue uniforms.


Not to be smart, but then why trust any photos at all. They could all just be throwing stuff on for just that minute. Not to mention some of the photos are from trenches and there they are wearing frock coats. I am not saying you have to wear a frock coat being period. But, if these gentleman are on campaign and company officer's had to sneak items onto wagon trains. So your saying they packed their frock andsome officer pants either in the wagon train or in their knapsack and when they were going to get photographed they went and got changed real quick, even while in trenches or on the march. Not to mention the earlier remark was that they didnt have that much wealth to buy multiple uniforms. I find it hard to believe that all these officers did it in union army. From the modern military stand point since I served. If we were getting photographed in the field our fatigue, BDU, uniform stayed on. We didnt stop the photographer and run and put on our dress blues. Now if you are talking about studio photos then yes I would agree they had a special outfit they would wear for them or maybe a custom uniform just for the shots, but I find it hard to believe that they lugged all that gear on campaign just to flip into it when they were getting photographed.

[skamikaze]

PS - That officer with not 1 but 2 plumes in his hat at Gettysburg - did he wear his frock like a bathrobe displaying his civilian vests? We nicknamed him the "Green Knight."

YES! he did! thats the guy. i like the nickname, ha ha ha.

oh well, i guess some people are too enthused about thier fake rank.

[Altecfive]

There also seems to be a difference in clothing between company officers and staff officers. Not surprisingly, staff officers seem to prefer the exceptions and more ostentatious gear than do the company officers, who tend to wear their stuff a bit more in keeping with regulations.
There's also reenacting history to consider here, too. Although we don't like to talk about it, sometimes what we wear is influenced by what's in fashion among ourselves. Remember when everybody bloused their trousers? Then nobody bloused their trousers? Now you can but not on parade blouse your trousers? A long time ago, f**by officers would simply slap a pair of shoulder boards on their 4-button, wear any old cheap cavalry saber and clank around looking officious. To put an end to that reenactorism, units and individuals began to emphasize the frock, "correct sword and side arm,"etc. Did we swing too far? Well, isn't that what usually happens?

PS - That officer with not 1 but 2 plumes in his hat at Gettysburg - did he wear his frock like a bathrobe displaying his civilian vests? We nicknamed him the "Green Knight."


That would be very the one Eric and myself know. He always wears his frock like that I guess he didnt realize that for dress parade and other occassions they would button up. The best part is when he is mad, and usually every event he thinks he knows better or could do better, you can watch those feathers fly back and forth through the ranks. Now there is a good example of what an officer didnt wear in the field if we are on that subject...lol.

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

Here's the image of Capt. Young, 60th NY, as referenced in this thread:
http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/hires/captjamesyoung60nytin.jpg

[cosgood]

Marc,

Thanks for the photo, now they can see what I was talking about.

Also does anyone have the immage of the officer from the 63rd PA? It is in a book about the gettysburg campaign, and shows the officer in a long commercial sack, droopy contract dress hat, enlisted haversack and is carrying his blanket roll on his sword which is slung over his shoulder. Cool immage, I just cant remember the books name.

[cosgood]

Courtney,

I doubt any officer would dress down for a photo. However in the cases you mentioned there are still officers who kept wearing their shoulder straps and wearing frocks in the field. I never said that all the officers would be wearing diminished or no rank, but I would say a good amount of them did.

[cosgood]

Here's the photo of Capt. Robert Nesbit 63rd PA. This photo is really crappy, but I cant find a better one right now, hopefully someone will recognize it and post a more clear version.

http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=pitttext;cc=pitttext;sid=435d463046a17dd71ba f04113331f92a;rgn=full%20text;idno=00hc08750m;seq= 0332

[Greg Deese]

I have read an account concerning the 13th Indiana, where the officers were warned not to wear sashes, bright brass, shoulder straps, fancy hats etc., simply because of the threat of sharpshooters, mind you. One Captain went to the field in full regalia believing that "providence" would protect him. He ended up being the first one shot.

[cosgood]

Greg,

Thanks for the reference! Thats the point John Meade Gould made (in 1862) and it was his opinion all officers should dress in the manner he did. I dont think that the practice of wearing no rank became common place untill the petersburg Campaign, it was after this campaign (at least in the AOP) that sharpshooters were the biggest threat. There are some accounts of the troops in the 19th Corps, arriving in VA, and taking note of the 6th corps officers wearing no straps, that they soon did the same. The 6th corps was returning from petersburg, and this was the begining of the campaign with the battles of winchester and cedar creek. I believe before that it was more 50/50, but the petersburg campaign changed the way the officers thought.

[Phil]

I'm a little lost here. Which officers are you talking about? US, CS or both? Which theater, and which time period? I think most of us know not to make generalizations about enlisted uniforms and gear, we're not doing that for officer's side, are we?

[bill watson]

Casey,

What is it you want to come of this thread? Just a dialogue? Or did you want event organizers with overly restrictive rules perhaps not in complete harmony with history to make an adjustment? A dialogue is great and informative. But those other folks don't hang out here. You'd have to snail mail them with your information and documentation and make the request for a rules relaxation as nonthreatening as possible.

Meanwhile, I'm not going to invoke the familiar mantra, but I do have to say, dude, what have you been doing with yourself that you've run up against these kinds of rules? They have not been part of any event I've attended for the past three years. In fact, the very issue you address, the apparently wider use of what amount to Civil War "battle fatigues" by officers, has either been addressed outright and embraced by the rules, or has been tacity assumed as a recognized fact.

[cosgood]

Bill,

Just going for some good ol discussion. Actually I have been out of the hobby for the past 3 years, so I have probably missed quite a bit. I remember a few years ago with the lookout mountain event, that suggested all officers had to wear this and that, this is where I am comming from. Im sure other events have made the same generalizations.

[bill watson]

"Actually I have been out of the hobby for the past 3 years,"


Things have changed, usually for the better. :-)

[TimKindred]

Bill,

Just going for some good ol discussion. Actually I have been out of the hobby for the past 3 years, so I have probably missed quite a bit. I remember a few years ago with the lookout mountain event, that suggested all officers had to wear this and that, this is where I am comming from. Im sure other events have made the same generalizations.

Casey,

For what it's worth, if you want to emulate the original officers, then you need to look at the Colonel who was originally commanding whatever unit you will be portraying at an event.

I say this because, historically, and it is as true today as it was then, the commanding officer sets the tone for the dress of his subordinate officers. If he is a stickler for regulations, then you can rest assured that, regardless of the desires of the line officers, they will be wearing dress coats with sashes, straps, et al in the field. If the CO is more lax, or more in tune with the needs of the service vice regulations, then you will see a greater variety of uniform components in play.

Thus, if you are to be tasked to portray an officer at the XXXXX event, then I'd be asking the fellow in charge what HIS desires are for you to wear, rather than just showing up with your own interpretation of what an officer ought to be wearing.

Therin lies the gist of the situation: Actual research of the unit at that place in time, versus the fellow in charge's idea of what you should be looking like.

Respects,

Tim Kindred

[Greg Deese]

No doubt that there were many regulation dressed officers and enlisted men in the ranks, but how concerned was the average officer or enlisted man with their uniform with the real threat of long range rifled cannon and sharpsooters? Did the advent of these weapons, force a change in unforms? Talking battlefields here, not a parade ground in D.C.

If the officers insisted on wearing the full regalia, then what was their casulaty rates? Did Confederate sharpshooters ever comment or deliberately seek out the man in the "funny hat?"

Yes, some foolish officers continued to dress like peacocks on parade, but I believe they paid the price for their vanity.

At any average reenactment, concerning officers, almost all of the officers I have witnessed are dressed out like Napoleon in brilliant gear from Lieutenants to Major Generals.

Glad you weren't these guys:

Most of the privates of the regiment had to learn how to ride and care for their horses from scratch. And, when formed, they would have a distinctive form of weapon issued to them, on the orders of Major General McClellan - a nine foot long wooden lance, tipped with an 11-inch steel blade. Each weighed about eight pounds, and were complete with a scarlet pennant, which unfortunately became a vivid target for Confederate sharpshooters. The troopers would soon find the lance to be useless and burdensome in the field; one trooper lamented that "the officers like it, but the men do not, and the officers wouldn't if they had to use [it]." The lances would be turned in on May 24, 1863, about a month before their service at Gettysburg. The men were then issued Sharps single-shot, breech-loading carbines, and assigned to the Reserve Brigade of the Army of the Potomac. They also carried .36 and .44 caliber Colt revolvers.

http://www.bufordsboys.com/6thPAHistory.htm

http://www.rushslancers.com/lancergroup.jpg

Greg Deese

[cosgood]

Greg,

To go with your last post, I offer this:

[August 10, 1862, after Cedar Mountain] “Captain Andrew Cloudman was killed... His splendid hat... were a perfect target and he suffered death as a consequence. Folsom was tall and wore a tall hat, killed instantly. Little Freeman had on a light citizen’s hat and was waving his polished sword when he fell. Captain Adams wore a cap and was not particularly a mark... Rankin wore a hat and was wounded. Sargent wore a splendid hat and was wounded in the face... Co. H wore their rubber blankets, the white side out, over their shoulders...” [The Civil War Journals of John Mead Gould, p. 168]

From looking at this, I would guess if your troops had forage caps, its best you do so as well, or you may be a target.

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

One of the exceptions to what we've been talking about here is this, one of my favorite images of troops in the field. It's dated July 22, 1864, of Federal pickets outside of Atlanta.

http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/cwpb/02200/02235v.jpg

Note the enlisted men in hats...
http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/hires/atlantapicketsEM.jpg

...while the officers are in full regalia. Kepis, swords...and the Captain in the foreground wears a frock and a sash in officer-of-the-day configuration.
http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/hires/atlantapicketsOFF.jpg

[bill watson]

Mr. Sash is not exactly skinny, either, is he? :-) Great photo.

[FWL]

Mr. Sash is not exactly skinny, either, is he? :-) Great photo.

Bill, of course he's not skinny, Uncle Billy's boys you know.

Great photo, going in my virtual library

Frank Lilley
Sore Foot Mess
"Day by day nothing seems to change, but pretty soon everything is different" Calvin

[Button Whizzer]

Casey,

Locating a copy of the "Officers in Strapless Blouses" article by Bob Braun of the 33rd Wisconsin Infantry, formerly of the 124th New York Infantry, could be a big help for your field modified officer impression. His article covers the same material in your original post, and more.

Camp Chase Gazette published a similar article by John Pagano of the Hardtack Society about officer impressions, and it may have included a paragraph or two concerning modified rank insignia. A later Camp Chase Gazette article appeared in recent times with tips for eastern and western officer impressions.

Welcome back.

Brandon

[cosgood]

Brandon,

Already have a copy :)

[Mint Julep]

Scenario driven, unit specific research.

Casey O. says more than once that we know they had reduced rank or no rank as early as 1862.

(Yes, this is a tired example, beaten to death, but it is on target, I have to drag it out again.) In 1862, the 125th Ohio made their first "long march" from Nashville to Franklin. Ralsa Rice was a company sergeant and tells us that they learned from this march to lighten their load. When Rice, a company sergeant, reaches the Harpeth River as a skirmisher and has to wade it to help drive the Confederate cavalry out of Franklin, he uses his SWORD to climb up the steep bank (and leaves it there to posterity). If a company sergeant is wearing a sword (he says they all were), how do you think the officers look?

So, in the same year that some officers are wearing no rank or reduced rank and enlisted clothes, sergeants in another unit are carrying swords. If you were portraying a veteran unit, then you might be wearing a simple commercial sack with reduced rank, but if you were portraying a new unit in the field, you'd be more likely to be wearing the regalia the rank allowed.

Scenario driven, unit specific research. No broad strokes.

If the research does not provide the information, then you can try to apply assumptions based on information from units in the same brigade or division, with similar field experiences.

Of course, Rice later tells of being ordered to cross an open field as skirmishers and asking whether he had to follow the book or not. When told the objective was the woods on the far side of the field and process was not the point, he huddles up the company, tells them the objective, spreads them out and yells "GO!" and they ran across the field to the woods. So, you CAN see the veteran effect on the same organization and man in a couple of years.

just some counterpoint,

MJ

[marylandreb]

Of course, Rice later tells of being ordered to cross an open field as skirmishers and asking whether he had to follow the book or not. When told the objective was the woods on the far side of the field and process was not the point, he huddles up the company, tells them the objective, spreads them out and yells "GO!" and they ran across the field to the woods. So, you CAN see the veteran effect on the same organization and man in a couple of years.

just some counterpoint,

MJ


Would have loved to witness that!:)

[Mint Julep]

It is an excellent book, full of such insights: Yankee Tigers, by Ralsa Rice. There is also Yankee Tigers II, which a compilation by Baumgartner. Both are excellent reads if you are interested in Federals in the western theater.

One of the interesting discussions in Yankee Tigers II is the efforts to raise two more companies for the 125th Ohio. A man is promised the rank of Major if he can raise the men for two companies. In turn, the man is promising the rank of Lt. to any man that can recruit 10 men for the companies or as replacements in companies that have already suffered casualties.

Sounds a lot like modern reenacting ad hoc battalion organization to me.

MJ

[cosgood]

Mint,

Excellent points! You can definately pick out the veteran organizations from the newbies. Here's a great example: one 124th NY private remarked when seeing the 86th NY for the first time, about how dirty and ragged they were and that they did not look much like a military unit, however when the command for order arms was given one solid thud was all they heard, and they were in awe of them. This was prior to the battle of chancellorsville. I cant remember the exact quote or in what account I read this ( too many to remember). I lost alot of my research when I moved, and I wish I could find the exact quote.

Anyhow this gives you an idea of how the veteran troops appeared to the new regiments.

On another note, the way warfare changed by 1864, it was clear the tactics changed as well. From looking at the lists of casualties in the 107th NY during the atlanta campaign a couple things jump out at you. Most of the wounds were right arm and head wounds. To me this suggests they were fighting in the prone position or were in entrenchments. This most likely had a direct effect on how the officers dressed in the field, to not stick out.

[bob 125th nysvi]

That way the rebs will waste bullets trying to hit them instead of me!

Most of them are only getting in my way anyway.

Bob Sandusky - PRIVATE
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

[neocelt]

Gents,

This has been an excellent an enlightening discussion with many valid points and lots of excellent references being brought to bear. Having scrutinized the image of Capt. Young of the 60th NY however, I would submit that in my opinion he is not wearing an issue fatigue blouse. It would appear that the lower part of the body of the blouse is bulging on both sides from what I can only conclude are well-stuffed pockets. Conversely, there is no similar bulge in the area where the "kidney" pocket is found on the issue blouse. Also, the body of his blouse is a tad too long to be a "typical" issue blouse (in surveying original specimens, one will notice that the body of the blouse is often only slightly longer than the sleeves). Finally, IMHO his trowsers are not full enough in the leg to be issue trowsers; indeed, they hardly blouse at all over his boot tops. Just my two cents... Again, many thanks for a very worthwhile dialogue--keep it up!

Cheers,

Nick Nichols
Heartland House

[Guy Gane III]

I wish I could copy the pictures from the book "A History of the Civil War" by Benson J. Lossing, LLD. published by The War Memorial Association, 1912.

It has a LOAD of Brady pics that show LOADS of Officers wearing private purchase SACK COATS. Some trimmed with black tape around the edges, some with velvet collars, tape straight across the cuff, long cut, pockets all over the place, or some combination of all of those. There is a picture of an officer wearing a tall hat with Captain's bars on them. One of the most common features of all these pictures... NO RANK WHAT-SO-EVER.

I think we could go on for days about what is over/under-represented. As many have said already - officers were on their own to supply their uniforms. Now we all know that going to a tailor would be more expensive and less convenient than going to the Quartermaster and getting a jacket that serves the same function as the P.P. sack that would get trashed on hard campaign. Original coats and including some officer sack coats had quilting in the chest. (You try wearing a dress coat with quilting in the South - WHEW!) Remember what the pay rates were. Remember that you would/could send money home. Officers also had to pay for their own food. Add all those factors together and you get the same result you would for a person "promoted" to an officer position in reenacting; do you want to spend all the money to look like a "Regulation" officer.

My main gripe with underrepresented things - Officers not wearing dark blue (sky-blue seam cord). Over represented things - The use of pistols....:confused:


Ill see what I can do about finding the pictures online.

[Rob]

(The following is excerpted from A.R. Barlow's Company G: A Record of the Services of One Company of the 157th N.Y. Vols. in the War of the Rebellion from Sept. 19, 1862 to July 10, 1865.)

"He [Harrison Frank, commander of Co. G] cared little for the glory of military display and wore on parade the dress coat of a private adorned with shoulder straps. This was not from penuriousness. One day the colonel took him to task for not appearing in a uniform coat. 'Colonel,' he replied, 'I have a mother and others at home, who need all I can save from my pay. In my baggage I have a new uniform coat. My boys know me in this uniform.' He wore that plain dress coat unmolested. In fact, when he fell at Gettysburg he wore the ordinary blouse of a private soldier, with two bars attached, taken from an old shoulder strap."