Let's discuss- Hat devices\adornments

[PATBUZZARD]

We are all familiar with Jeb Stuart and the dashing cavlier image that is often associated with him. At reenactments you often encounter many people with all sorts of adornments attached to their kepis\slouch hats. While it is a matter of historical record that, especially in the union, it was common to have corps\division affiliation devices attached to ones headgear, I find myself wondering just how common this really was, especially in the south. Are many actors overdoing it? For example, I personally find it unlikely that every cavalrymen had gold cords around thier hat. What are your thoughts? Is the minimalist approach more accurate?

[gwagner]

I like coon bones!

[1stSgt45PVI]

Personally IMHO and from what I've seen, been reading here and elsewhere, the less the better? As a federal 1st Sgt. I when I wear my: kepi it's w/ Company Letter on the front NOT front top,(and occasionally w/my cloth Havelock I would think that if it worked you prob. kept it till it was no good or was prob. used for a rag or something). My black felt Debry/Bowler style slouch w/ cloth 9th corp badge on left side; or just a plain mechanics cap.
Of course there are those out there that will say, "Thats not correct or not documented after X". As American's we strive for individuality and to each his own; just remember the more brass, the more to clean, andthe more to be charged for losing them;). I also have several period shakos but refrain from wearing them usually, except for educational display purposes or a good laugh.
Hope it sorta helps!
Just my two cents!
Zak

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"While it is a matter of historical record that, especially in the union, it was common to have corps\division affiliation devices attached to ones headgear, I find myself wondering just how common this really was, especially in the south."

Historically speaking, you may want to check the history on that.
Meaning, Period photogrpahs and personal accounts do not bear that statement out.
NUG, if one was in a unit that wore something other than the "by the manual" company letter on their forage caps, or some form of the issued devices for their dress hats, then one
NUG wore them. If not, not.
As the Broken Record Mantra goes- "What does research and documentation show for the time and place of the unit being recreated?"

"Are many actors overdoing it? For example, I personally find it unlikely that every cavalrymen had gold cords around thier hat. What are your thoughts?"

As the Broken Record Mantra goes- "What does research and documentation show for the time and place of the unit being recreated?"

NUG, reenactors can tend to overdo it, because they can. And to make a universal statement, they that do, definitely overdo when it comes to:

1. two or three foot long dyed ostritch or peacock plumes
2. chains made of spent friction primers
3. chains made of beer can pulls
4 US or CSA lapel flag pins
5. sundry modern cap pins
6. ID badges from past events
7. raccoon penis bones
8. etc.

"Is the minimalist approach more accurate?"

As the Broken Record Mantra goes- "What does research and documentation show for the time and place of the unit being recreated?"

If a unit in its time and place universally wore something on their hats or caps, then not to have those devices is historically incorrect.
If a unit in its time and place universally wore nothing on their hats or caps, then to have devices is historically incorrect.

IMHO still, "a minimalist approach" is the step-child of the "vanilla, generic" attempt to
brigade and band together smallers sub-units to be larger field entities such as companies, battalions, and brigades. It creates, or presents a greater illusion that the men belong in the same company or battalion when they have similar clothing and equipment. The more hat or cap devices, the harder it is to present or maintian that illusion or "look."
For example, if we are doing a generic confederate... we would not want every man to have the 1861/62 1st Texas Infantry's Star Rifles' caps with a star on the top surrounded by the brass letters "1 S R Texas" on the crown?

And last, looking around at reenactments comparing what one sees to actual history is a flawed path to go down...

;) :)

Others' mileage will vary...

CHS

[Colonel Dave]

Except for the obvious, blatant over doing it, there is no correct answer.
The most common, based on diaries and origional photographs taken in the field, indicates the absence of anything on the hat. The most common item seems to be a company letter and later in the war, a corps badge.
Since you are a member of a western Union group that is a member of the Cumberland Guard,, it is safe to say that few of your pards will have much on their hats. I know your leader, Chewy, is not a big fan of hat brass.
Just don't forget your light blue ribbon on your jacket.

[Rob Weaver]

Our unit is one of the exceptions to the rule. The Iron Brigade was issued hat brass, cords and especially feathers throughout the history of the Brigade. Surviving hats also display the corps badge prominently on the front of the hat. So it is appropriate for an IB impression to have the dress hat "fully dressed." You also see variations: bugle and cord, corps badge, no eagle on the side, etc.
I don't wear numbers, letters or the corps badge most of the time. It is difficult enough to brigade small units together and the Hardee hat is distinctive enough as it is. That bright red circle stands out no matter where you try to fit in. I also have a civilian hat decorated only with a "7" for certain settings. There is photographic evidence for this in the late IB.

[KyColorSgt]

As a subset of this question - what, if any, historical evidence is there for stitching a coon bone to a hat? I don't recall ever seeing an original hat with a coon bone stitched on, or any period images of the same. This practice seems to be gaining in popularity in some units, and I was seriously wondering what historical evidence there is for doing this (or lack thereof).

If as I assume, there is no historical basis, what's the origin of the "fad?"

[reddcorp]

The practice of attaching coon bones to hats, and/or other items of clothing has led to a serious decline in the coon population in several southern states. So, when you contemplate adding a coon bone to your ensemble, think of the family you will be destroying.

Rocky Racoon aka Andy Redd

[28thNY]

The practice of attaching coon bones to hats, and/or other items of clothing has led to a serious decline in the coon population in several southern states. So, when you contemplate adding a coon bone to your ensemble, think of the family you will be destroying.

Rocky Racoon aka Andy Redd

I think I'm going to have to get a coon bone for my forage cap.

Based on the few available period photos of officers and men from the 28th NY, they had nothing on their forage caps at all to indicate regiment, company, branch...etc..., so that's what I do.

My group does have people who have some *interesting items" (read that as "things that make me shake my head sometimes") on their forage caps, but that's the consequence of not strictly enforcing uniform guidelines. :(

[FloridaHoosier]

As I know that the coon bone statement was made tongue in cheek, lets rope this one back in and discuss period practices and not blatant farbism and small animal mutilation...

[Spinster]

Thank you Ross. It's a wonder Galen has not bled to death from the large hole his tongue made in his cheek on that comment.

For those fellers who insist on those little bitty bones:
Let me also say, the ladies are laughing at you. :p
And you would not find the reason to be funny.:cool:

[mmescher]

I can't offer documentation but can toss out some ideas for people to think about.

Concerning the corps badges, if I'm not mistaken I believe that started with the Army of the Potomac under McClellan. I haven't heard anything about whether it was uniformly practiced even in that army.

Concerning other adornments, e.g., prominent feathers or other ornaments, such items make you more of an individual. During the mideval time period when knights were engaging in close combat, there was a value in identifying yourself so maybe you could psyche out your opponent, particularly if you had a reputation for being one mean customer. But with the rather impersonal weapons of firearms which kill at a distance, it would seem that anything that makes you stand out from the rest of your comrades could also be spelled "target." When the Iron Brigade is on the field with their Hardee Hats and plumes, they all look the same. One soldier with a plume or any decoration that sparkles makes him stand out and more likely to get shot.

Just some thoughts.

Michael Mescher

[flattop32355]

Concerning the corps badges, if I'm not mistaken I believe that started with the Army of the Potomac under McClellan. I haven't heard anything about whether it was uniformly practiced even in that army.

I believe it was Joe Hooker who initiated the widespread use of corps badges for the AOP as one means to reestablish morale after the previous year's debacles.

Different corps established their badges at different times, even within the AOP. Some Federal corps adopted an official badge, but didn't use them much.

The Eleventh and Twelfth Corps got into a pissing match when they were combined after heading west to counter Longstreet's addition to Bragg's AOT about what their badge was to be. Most seemingly kept wearing the one they had come to cherish while separate corps.

[Rob Weaver]

The old I Corps was allowed to retain their corps badge when grafted onto the V Corps as the 4th Division.
I don't know - Corps badges seem to be the one distinctive item that Union soldiers developed great attachment to. We still think of them as the forerunners of division patches that are cherished today. They seem to have worn them with great pride not only on their hats or caps but also on clothing. If I were to steer someone toward the one distinctive item with which to decorate a hat, it would be a corps badge before all the brass items, and exclude the other junk: coon parts, primer wires, etc.

[28thNY]

As I know that the coon bone statement was made tongue in cheek, lets rope this one back in and discuss period practices and not blatant farbism and small animal mutilation...

I'm well aware that it was a tongue in cheek comment regarding the use of animal parts ("coon bones" and various other parts of an animals anatomy). I was just making a joke.

As was said in another post, based on the books I've read, the members of the 12th Corps were extremely attached to the Corps badges which they wore and they mention to close attachment to various other regiments who had "worn the star". They also spent an entire page of the history of the regiment listing reasons why they were extremely unhappy when the 12th Corps was merged with the 11th.

Using my group as an example though, the problem which we have is that the 28th was a two year regiment and was mustered out shortly after the Corps badges were introduced so, unless we are representing a very short section of the history of the regiment, the early war reenactors shouldn't wear them anyway.

Most period photos I've seen seem to show a Company letter or no brass and, as said in my previous post, I am yet to find a single period photo of the people from the 28th who had any brass at all.

[Jim of the SRR]

We are all familiar with Jeb Stuart and the dashing cavlier image that is often associated with him. At reenactments you often encounter many people with all sorts of adornments attached to their kepis\slouch hats. While it is a matter of historical record that, especially in the union, it was common to have corps\division affiliation devices attached to ones headgear, I find myself wondering just how common this really was, especially in the south. Are many actors overdoing it? For example, I personally find it unlikely that every cavalrymen had gold cords around thier hat. What are your thoughts? Is the minimalist approach more accurate?

As with most broad questions like this, you need to tell us what theater, what time frame, what unit to be better able to answer the question.

Jim Butler