Absolutes?

[bob 125th nysvi]

Once again we have been given an Article on how to do something. In this case the article is in the September 2006 CCG "Low Cost and No Cost Ways to Improve Your Impression" by Ross Lamoreaux

I am sure that Mr. Lamoreaux's information is accurate in that this is how SOME civil war soldiers did what they did. Maybe even a great number of them, maybe even a MAJORITY of them.

And I beleive his article is intended to improve the hobby.

It is in Mr. Lamoreaux's (and countless other 'How To' suggestors, I am just using him as an example that can be cited and verified having nothing against Mr. Lamoreaux, I don't know the guy) belief in absolutes, as in this is the ONLY way.

In that I respectfully disagree.

Let me point out that in 1860 the Regular Army consisted of under 20,000 men and officers and had contractors used to supporting a peacetime army of that strength.

By the end of the CW the total number of men who had served in both armies numbered over 300 TIMES the size of the prewar army. And both sides had enough problems supporting those men with the materials of war that they resorted to importing massive amounts of equipment. And just about every manufacturer in the country got involved in filling orders for war material.

John Tobey's article ("Frankenrelic") in the Sept/Oct 2006 Civil War Historian shows original equipment issued and used that if it showed up on today's reenactment battlefield would be ridiculed as "farby".

In his article Mr. Tobey points out that in 1860 strict specifications did not exist for many military articles and the detailed "Quartermaster's Manual" of 1865 was never even published.

You had states contracting to provide material for regiments they raised. You had the government sending written descriptions to contractors and accepting the product if it was servicable. Even if it wasn't 'exactly' what they expected.

To beleive that there were massive variations in the quality and design among the different manufacturers is only logical.

To expand the theme to beleive there was only ONE way to wear a canteen, haversack or cartridge box in civilian based armies numbering MILLIONS of men is just plan illogical.

I do not doubt that 'advisors' like Mr. Lamoreaux are accurate in being able to cite examples of what they preach. I don't doubt that they beleive if their advice is followed that the hobby will be 'improved'.

What I doubt, is in America's first mass mobilzed, industrial revolution, continent wide war, that there was only ONE way to do anything.

Unfortunately, far too often this is what we are told.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

[Sgt_Pepper]

"There are three ways to do everything: the right way, the wrong way, and the Marine Corps way - and the first two don't count here (MCRD Parris Island, SC)."

[ThehosGendar]

In my readings and after staring at the LOC high-res images for hours and hours, the only absolute you can really stick to is that the Civil War was fought by carbon-based humans who wore uniforms which sort of followed a certain pattern design who marched, shot guns, and ate food, with hundreds of variations thereof.

However, this isn't a permission slip to do whatever. The PEC thing is still a good idea most of the time.

[7thMDYankee]

Mr. Sandusky,

It is very wise to be cautious with anyone standing up and saying something as grandiose as "this is the way it was done..." Some years ago I was chided by some "authenticity police" at an event for "farby" gear. It was something like, "Where did you get that? Why would you bring something like that out here... we're about history!?" They were not even placated when I informed them it was a piece of documented vintage gear from the very campaign we were re-enacting! I was mildly shocked when I heard one say, "We've studied everything from this war, we know enough to know you are wrong!" Ugh!

In all fairness I don't recall the event (though it was in the Shenandoah) nor the people making the charge (I was doing rebel at the time), and it was at least 15 years ago... the point, though, sticks.

James West Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle wrote a book entitled "After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection." They painstakingly examine the very issue you bring up in your post. It is my humble suggestion that anyone attempting to research something (or anything) from the past read the pages of their book first.

Basically they examine a myriad of angles from which we draw the story of the past. The principles they espouse may then be expanded to many other eras and topics. I can't help but feel that the quality of our research would improve, which would hopefully correspond to better and more honest portrayals of the past.

I just fear that some among us may research so much that they feel invincible when it comes to knowing the past. Then they become so haughty they don't even know the real thing when they see it.

Just my 2 cents of unsolicited observations and thoughts. Thank you for your time.

[bill watson]

"It is in Mr. Lamoreaux's belief in absolutes, as in this is the ONLY way."

Hey Bob,
Not having access to the magazine article: Is there something in the article that makes you think he actually says "the way I'm telling you is the only way?"

[Rob]

One of my favorites:

"Thou shalt not bend the brim of your hat in the manner of a baseball cap."

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f279/rlg118/Cap.jpg

[NC5thcav]

I agree that there are no real absolutes, but the point that most people preaching PEC are trying to make is for reenactors not to take one instance and then overdo it. You can find documentation for just about anything if you look hard enough, but ask yourself "was this really that common?" I'm not saying that some things should never be done, but if two soldiers in the Army of the Potomac wore yellow trimmed green polka dotted pants, should you do the same, just because you can document it?

[Pvt Schnapps]

I agree that there are no real absolutes, but the point that most people preaching PEC are trying to make is for reenactors not to take one instance and then overdo it. You can find documentation for just about anything if you look hard enough, but ask yourself "was this really that common?" I'm not saying that some things should never be done, but if two soldiers in the Army of the Potomac wore yellow trimmed green polka dotted pants, should you do the same, just because you can document it?

Only if my jaguar skin chaps are at the cleaners.

[ewtaylor]

One of my favorites:

"Thou shalt not bend the brim of your hat in the manner of a baseball cap."

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f279/rlg118/Cap.jpg

I still see more reenactors doing it then period soldiers in period photos.
ew taylor

[Rob]

Interestingly enough, when I received my Sekala cap last year, the brim looked just like the one in the photo. I tried to bend it straight, but it wouldn't stay, so I left it alone.

[indguard]

I still see more reenactors doing it then period soldiers in period photos.

See, THERE is another problematic basis on which to base your conceptions about what "they did".

While the civil war was a highly photographed war, it was not a THOROUGHLY photographed war!

Most of the photos we can see of clear depictions of soldiers are STUDIO pictures. In those we are NOT necessarily seeing what the soldier wore in the field and often what the photographer wanted, or what the soldier thought would look "more military", etc. Staged photos are not field photos.

Yes, we do have many photos of the soldiers in the field, but often even THOSE are staged photos and not just snapshots of soldiers going about their everyday duties like we have of later wars.

What I am saying here is, yes, we have a lot of photos that can help us determine what to wear, how to wear and what to do in the field but we DO NOT have definitive photos to make that determination and to say "that is how ALL of them did it".

Remember how new and difficult photography was during that era? Contrast that with the brownie boxes and Kodak snapshooters of later wars that were wielded by the soldiers themselves in camp and on campaign and you get a MAJOR difference in photographic resources.

Just a thought of caution for us all to remember.

Yours, Warner Todd Huston

[Jim of the SRR]

I still see more reenactors doing it then period soldiers in period photos.
ew taylor

It also depends on weather you have a Type I or Type II (these were not terms used during the CW, but modern references to specify a type of forage cap). It seems one type has a natural curve to it and the other as almost no curve. Columbia Rifles Compendium is good source to look at this.

Regards,
Jim Butler

[Rob]

It also depends on weather you have a Type I or Type II (these were not terms used during the CW, but modern references to specify a type of forage cap). It seems one type has a natural curve to it and the other as almost no curve. Columbia Rifles Compendium is good source to look at this.

Regards,
Jim Butler

Yep. It was supposed to be a "two", but we've already had that discussion.

[Ken]

Rob,

Out of curiosity was that a Type I cap?

[ThehosGendar]

Yes, we do have many photos of the soldiers in the field, but often even THOSE are staged photos and not just snapshots of soldiers going about their everyday duties like we have of later wars.



While there are many company photos in the field, there are also quite alot of images of soldiers caught in the act of marching, launching balloons, bathing, being bored, and digging holes. The LOC is a wonderful resource, and the clarity of those field images rivals those of the staged studio images. In fact, when you look at the high-res of a studio portrait, they're mostly out of focus, whereas most of the field images have a very, very far focus.

[theknapsack]

I still see more reenactors doing it then period soldiers in period photos.
ew taylor
You do? Then you need to look at some photos. Every authentic event I go to I barely see one guy with the baseball cap. Check these guys out:
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h72/swhithrn/morecollars.jpg
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h72/swhithrn/collars.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/theknapsack/93rdNewyork1.jpg
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j178/darthpreston/antietam3.jpg

If you want more then I am more than happy to supply them...

[ewtaylor]

Obvious "McDowell" type forage caps! I'm talking about reenactors with kepis or wide brim forage caps reshaping them to look like their favorite baseball teams' headgear!! NOT ONE Of those soldiers reshaped his brim to make it curve. They are great photos, keep em coming.
ew taylor

[Mint Julep]

I think there is a misconception of what the "baseball cap" comparison is all about. The bill of the hat might get some bend naturally if the hat is a tight fit on the head. But, if you want to understand the ban against the "baseball cap" look, go down to the mall (or to your teenage son's room) and look at the caps the boys are wearing. I've seen some where the sides of the brim were almost touching because they were rolled so tight.

I've seen reenactors wearing caps with leather brims that have been rolled down on the sides in a similar fashion. I've never seen a period image that looked like that.

Granted, it is a trend, possibly even a hardkewlism, to bend up the brim of the forage cap. When you see a small knot of soldiers, with brims up, scarves about their necks, comparing their Sekela frocks and clearly becoming aroused by it, then you have a hardkewl knot.

MJ

[MStuart]

When you see a small knot of soldiers, with brims up, scarves about their necks, comparing their Sekela frocks and clearly becoming aroused by it, then you have a hardkewl knot.MJ

I've heard you aren't s'posed to use windex to clean a lap-top screen. Anyone know how to get coffee off of one without ruining it?

Mark

[Rob]

I think there is a misconception of what the "baseball cap" comparison is all about. The bill of the hat might get some bend naturally if the hat is a tight fit on the head. But, if you want to understand the ban against the "baseball cap" look, go down to the mall (or to your teenage son's room) and look at the caps the boys are wearing. I've seen some where the sides of the brim were almost touching because they were rolled so tight.
MJ

I've done that - with real baseball caps.

I'm talking about Riley's first photo of the 93rd New York, the gent on the top right. That's what mine looked like, before I ever put it on.

Of course, now, after several soakings and stretchings, and having half the coating peel off, it more closely resembles the letter "W". ;)

[hiplainsyank]

I love it when someone posts an enhanced version of CW photos. I wish someone would do what the above poster did for a whole bo0ok.

Say, something like "A Photographic History of the Common Civil War Soldier."

That would be a book I'd buy.

[Trooper Graham]

I love it when someone posts an enhanced version of CW photos. I wish someone would do what the above poster did for a whole bo0ok.

Say, something like "A Photographic History of the Common Civil War Soldier."

That would be a book I'd buy.

Install a Photoshop program, find a photo, copy it to Photoshop and you can enhance it as much as you want.