Morning Reports - Record'g La'Numbres

[Lightningslinger]

On another thread entitled: Actual Gettysburg numbers being reported?

Kevin, a happy 16 year old private from North Carolina, who had been looking forward to attend'g both Gettysburg events in '08 wrote:


It would be good to know the number of people that actually show up.

Many probably registered around January/February ... have since then had to cancel for one reason or another.

Isn't there a note at the bottom of the morning return that states something about list'g the names of those not present for duty by writing them on the back of the form?

I'm not aware that regiments or detachments of re-enactors actually do such on a regular basis but why couldn't those who have already registered for an event, but not yet arrived, be listed on the backs of morning reports and have these names tabulated into the consolidated returns as being registered?

Hope you all don't mind me asking, but, where will the various morning returns then wind up in red-taped bundles once the weekend engagements are concluded?

Remember, Kevin said that "It would be good to know the number of people [who] actually show up." [deletion - THP; questionable]

Walt

[Memphis]

Quite possibly because the roster name answered to at roll calls is oftentimes not his own, but a man dead for decades, and quite possibly for well over a century.

[Lightningslinger]

Quite possibly because the roster name answered to at roll calls is oftentimes not his own, but a man dead for decades, and quite possibly for well over a century.

If I understand rightly, you are not making a reference to historical names when making tally marks on the Morning Report form are you? If you thought I was eluding to historic rosters to be answered to by re-enactors at roll call I'm sorry. That wasn't what I meant.

We'll have to rely on the re-enactor honour system as for who is actually in attendance, e.g. present during the event. Those who are listed on the back of the form would be backed up by registrations-paid and possibly checked against the monies received by the event sponsors at a later time if thought worthy to do so. I doubt that such back-verifying would ever occur but could be wrong there too one day.

On the bean counting reality side of submitting re-enacting morning reports, your physical event tallies will seldom, if ever, match your counterparts' 1860's numbers, excepting maybe Appomattox or perhaps the Bennett Place.

Walt

[Memphis]

Rhetorically speaking, "how many angels are on the head of any given pin?"

This cornucopia may be a far better way to spend time:

Often Seen, Rarely Exploited (http://www.zipcon.net/~silas/links.htm)

If the people in the shade at check-in don't have a handle on the numbers, then who really does? Morning reports are often not worth the paper upon which they are scribbled, as people arrive and depart before, after, and sometiems during the three scheduled roll calls. It's a highly fluid environment out there, isn't it?

The link to the 1870s article by an IG from Pickett's bunch looks tasty.

[bob 125th nysvi]

On another thread entitled: Actual Gettysburg numbers being reported?

Kevin, a happy 16 year old private from North Carolina, who had been looking forward to attend'g both Gettysburg events in '08 wrote:



Isn't there a note at the bottom of the morning return that states something about list'g the names of those not present for duty by writing them on the back of the form?

I'm not aware that regiments or detachments of re-enactors actually do such on a regular basis but why couldn't those who have already registered for an event, but not yet arrived, be listed on the backs of morning reports and have these names tabulated into the consolidated returns as being registered?

Hope you all don't mind me asking, but, where will the various morning returns then wind up in red-taped bundles once the weekend engagements are concluded?

Remember, Kevin said that "It would be good to know the number of people [who] actually show up." [deletion - THP; questionable]

Walt


we do role call every morning based on who ACTUALLY showed for the event. Men who are anticipated but not reported are listed as missing and men who have left early are listed as on detached duty. This not only includes men in our unit but is done on a company basis so it may be an amalgamted return of several reenacting units.

Now on to reality.

If you ACTUALLY expect the reports to be finished just like the Union Army did after the event then you had better volunteer to do them yourself.

Unlike the real army it is unimportant who did and didn't not show up for duty, what role they filled, who came and went AWOL at a reenactment.

There are interim reports during the event (our NCOS have turned in ammo consumption reports for example) but once the event closes down no one cares about paperwork 1860s style because there is too much paperwork 21st century style for the event organizers to do to justify the event and begin planning for next year.

[Memphis]

Bob,

More than a few of us are watching Tom Sawyer asking others to paint his fence in a way that is just as silly as possibly can be. Your DIY comment is right on target.

[Pvt Schnapps]

On another thread entitled: Actual Gettysburg numbers being reported?

Kevin, a happy 16 year old private from North Carolina, who had been looking forward to attend'g both Gettysburg events in '08 wrote:



Isn't there a note at the bottom of the morning return that states something about list'g the names of those not present for duty by writing them on the back of the form?

I'm not aware that regiments or detachments of re-enactors actually do such on a regular basis but why couldn't those who have already registered for an event, but not yet arrived, be listed on the backs of morning reports and have these names tabulated into the consolidated returns as being registered?

Hope you all don't mind me asking, but, where will the various morning returns then wind up in red-taped bundles once the weekend engagements are concluded?

Remember, Kevin said that "It would be good to know the number of people [who] actually show up." [deletion - THP; questionable]

Walt

I served as Kevin Air's clerk or AAG at several events, beginning with "Gates of Washington" in 2004 and continuing to "September Storm" last year. For each I maintained records of those registered for the event, by unit. For each, either me or a friend of mine acting as a clerk or ADC at head quarters consolidated morning reports on site showing the numbers of those who were present for duty each day.

I doubt we're the only folks to ever do this. What's your point?

[JohnnyReb102]

On another thread entitled: Actual Gettysburg numbers being reported?

Kevin, a happy 16 year old private from North Carolina, who had been looking forward to attend'g both Gettysburg events in '08 wrote:



Isn't there a note at the bottom of the morning return that states something about list'g the names of those not present for duty by writing them on the back of the form?

I'm not aware that regiments or detachments of re-enactors actually do such on a regular basis but why couldn't those who have already registered for an event, but not yet arrived, be listed on the backs of morning reports and have these names tabulated into the consolidated returns as being registered?

Hope you all don't mind me asking, but, where will the various morning returns then wind up in red-taped bundles once the weekend engagements are concluded?

Remember, Kevin said that "It would be good to know the number of people [who] actually show up." [deletion - THP; questionable]

Walt

Thanks for the correction. I said that before flooding in the Midwest grew into a major problem. It would have given us a pretty good "status report" on the state of the hobby.

[Lightningslinger]

I served as Kevin Air's clerk or AAG at several events, beginning with "Gates of Washington" in 2004 and continuing to "September Storm" last year. For each I maintained records of those registered for the event, by unit. For each, either me or a friend of mine acting as a clerk or ADC at head quarters consolidated morning reports on site showing the numbers of those who were present for duty each day.

I doubt we're the only folks to ever do this. What's your point?


Michael,

Wrong Kevin my friend if you thought I was referring to Kevin Air. I said in my original post to this thread, "Kevin, a happy 16 year old private from North Carolina, who had been looking forward to attend'g both Gettysburg events in '08 wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb102

It would be good to know the number of people that actually show up.

Many probably registered around January/February ... have since then had to cancel for one reason or another.

Did you begin the thread from the beginning Mike? I too make the mistake of not doing so from time-to-time.

If you recall, I stated:


I'm not aware that regiments or detachments of re-enactors actually do such on a regular basis but why couldn't those who have already registered for an event, but not yet arrived, be listed on the backs of morning reports and have these names tabulated into the consolidated returns as being registered?

To this you say:


I doubt we're the only folks to ever do this. What's your point?

To re-state my point, ---> those who have already registered for an event, but not yet arrived, could and ought to be listed on the backs of morning reports, besides the fact that you, and a few others you suspect, are doing such. It's called uniformity - something the military has grown fond of over more than a few centuries.

As I am on the subject of those who have gone before us, please allow for some historical precedence. At the bottom of at least one extant period Morning Report form is written:

"Note: The names of the Absentees, both Officers and Soldiers, must be given on the back of the Report."

Most, if not all, event attending officers and their 1st sergeants know who had registered but did not make morning roll call to be included in the daily tally. Why not encourage others to do what you and a few others may already be doing? Numbers do matter. That's the point.

Appreciate your input to help keep this thread alive, Michael.
Walt

[Pvt Schnapps]

To re-state my point, ---> those who have already registered for an event, but not yet arrived, could and ought to be listed

Why?

All I ever required of subordinate units was the count of those present for duty. Recording the names of no shows is of no interest to anyone but the companies concerned, and they already know.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever prepared a consolidated morning report, either from company reports or regimental reports?

What other clerical functions do you recommend others perform that you've never had to perform yourself? Do you keep up descriptive lists, prepare casualty returns, then prepare the resulting inventories of effects and final statements, whether or not these have any practical import for the event? Have you done manuscript reports of lost ordnance for those leaving the event, or maintained a sick book?

What exactly are you recommending that folks do, Walt, and why?

As you know, I've done a lot of clerking myself, and prepared guides for those who are interested so others can have some fun with it if they want to. But I have never, and will never, take anyone to task for not sharing my obsessions.

Some of this has practical value for managing the event, and some of it has a certain intellectual value in the realm of experimental archaeology, like knapping flints to find out how arrow-heads were made. But since people are not living 24/7 in an actual 19th century army, they have to pick and choose what they're going to focus on during the weekend. For some of us, it will be army paperwork. For others it will be tactics and drill.

What's the last event you went to, Walt, and what did you focus on?

[Memphis]

Just to point out the obvious once again, what is the ballpark guess for the percentage of companies actually performing roll call and filling out a morning report for each day at an event on a regular basis. Notice "correctly" was not part of this question.

I'll guess less than 50%, and feel free to call me an optimist. :rolleyes:

[Lightningslinger]

What's the last event you went to, Walt, and what did you focus on?

This past weekend, Michael, I interpreted an 1853 Smith goose-neck hand-drawn, hand-pumped fire engine. It is a four-wheel'd vehicle and had been completely restored and placed in operating condition. Bob Szabo photographed it both at Fort McHenry and at Harpers Ferry. I was hoping to see it made part of the photo collection exhibited here on this forum welcome page.

Oh! Happy Fathers' Day Mike.

Walt

[Lightningslinger]

Just to point out the obvious once again, what is the ballpark guess for the percentage of companies actually performing roll call and filling out a morning report for each day at an event on a regular basis. Notice "correctly" was not part of this question.

I'll guess less than 50%, and feel free to call me an optimist. :rolleyes:

Now That's funny! :roll: Do you know I've read some personal accounts of 1860's participants who had to take some time learning how to make out the forms? And these folks were doing it 24/7. Practice makes perfect and if everyone else begins doing it, it becomes obvious to unit commanders that it might be high time to recruit a company clerk and invite him to the task.

Walt
PS We did notice that ---> "..."correctly" was not part of this question." Good for you Rog!!!!! But isn't a question usually followed by a question mark? Are you a clerk too?

[Memphis]

Sorry, Walt, but as mention in one or more of these Tom Sawyer threads is advice about reading thread from the very beginning. This is quite useful. The question in question was this question:


Hope you all don't mind me asking, but, where will the various morning returns then wind up in red-taped bundles once the weekend engagements are concluded?

What we really want to know is if the muster roll for the volunteer fire company has been dutifully filed in triplicate, consolidated at the battalion level, slapped with a fire brigade imprimatur from Sparky, wrapped in red tape, and will the AAG's work be inspected by the AIG, and is the COS all wet from the pumper's mighty squirt? Did someone need an ADC to fetch coffee? What would life be like without someone monitoring and tracking all this important stuff? ;)

Most profuse apologies in advance to Dalmations everywhere!

[Lightningslinger]

What would life be like without someone monitoring and tracking all this important stuff? ;)

Pretty much like it is now... with folks thinking we had so many at this event and not as many at another and wondering if the 'hobby' is shrinking or whether newer movements are picking up steam or losing it. You know, mundane stuff which can't be confirmed because the records are now non-existent or still sitting in someone's field desk and hard or currently impossible to track down -- stuff that our Pards on this forum occasionally keep bringing up, which to some, equate to making the obvious ballpark guesses. :rolleyes: But hey! That's life.

Walt

[Memphis]

Walt,

I have bad news. This could mean we are normal.

[Lightningslinger]

Sorry, Walt,...is the COS all wet from the pumper's mighty squirt?

Oh! That's it! You don't have any BIG TOYS to play with in your own backyard. I see now. Sorry 'bout that! :( Well you can come out to ours - but remember.... you'll have to come East over the old and ancient mountains of yore - You won't have to cringe at the very thought of it... just think of it as re-tracing the route of your forefathers. A pilgrimage as it were. A shoreline re-creational dream come true. ;)

Walt

``30``

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

You can't even go to an average event and not see modern wristwatches, modern eyeglasses, Coleman coolers covered (or not) in burlap, cars in camp, women in polyster Gone with the Wind gowns and snoods, men in poly/wool uniforms with every form of hatbrass you can fit on a retrofitted Stetson, and more 50 year old soldiers than 20 year olds, and now you think its possible to do correct returns for every company at every event. There's not enough room in my field desk for the correct forms, let alone see that they are completely correctly (until I move out the batteries for my fan, the mosquito net, the Coleman stove, my black sneakers for when my feet hurt, my digital camera, and my Sportmans Guide catalog......)

[Lightningslinger]

Walt,

I have bad news. This could mean we are normal.

Indeed we are... but possibly not militarily so. Perhaps 'tis not the sought-after fashion for some re-enactors. But then again, this is but an obvious ballpark guess, wouldn't you agree?

Walt

[Lightningslinger]

... There's not enough room in my field desk for the correct forms, let alone see that they are completely correctly (until I move out the batteries for my fan, the mosquito net, the Coleman stove, my black sneakers for when my feet hurt, my digital camera, and my Sportman's Guide catalog......)

Ross,

Welcome to the band waggon.... enjoy the ride. :D

Does your mosquito netting come with or without eleven foot sections of knot-able government red tape? Wait! That was another thread about our former American President Jefferson Davis. Happy Birthday Jeff!

But Ross? If you were ever observed by spectators having pairs of sneakers inserted in your pigeon-holed desk - do you suppose they'd ask you if you were involved with the secret or silent service?

I can see that you are wise enough to forward the 'correct forms' thus making room for the soon-to-be-correct'd ones. Do you keep a cubby-hole to store your paper adding machine tapes that go along with making out morning reports? You know there are now solar powered calculators and fans. Might go well for your staged events down in Beautiful Sunny Florida. ;) And free up another pigeon-hole to boot (or to shoe).

Walt

[Pvt Schnapps]

Just to point out the obvious once again, what is the ballpark guess for the percentage of companies actually performing roll call and filling out a morning report for each day at an event on a regular basis. Notice "correctly" was not part of this question.

I'll guess less than 50%, and feel free to call me an optimist. :rolleyes:

I think that's probably true for some, maybe most, events. But at September Storm last year, and other Anders-Air events in the last three or four years, both US and CS sides had 100% coverage, from company to brigade (or, on the CS side, division). A large part of this had to do with the commanders wanting it for practical reasons, another to the interest of the staff officers, and finally a desire on the part of everyone to try to be a little more military for the weekend.

Since I'd also been involved in pre-event planning for several of these events, I've been able to compare the present-for-duty counts with pre-event registration and get an idea of the attrition that takes place during the weekend, as well as before the event even starts.

I think I've shared these results before, but for these kinds of events, about a third of the registrants fail to show up for whatever reason. Cavalry and artillery are the most likely to show, probably because of the commitment they have to make just to plan to get there. Officers also have a high attendance rate. The largest pre-event attrition occurs among infantry privates, which tells me that commanders should make a special effort to encourage them to show up, and should also take some attrition into account when assigning rank (for those units that do this).

Your comment about "correctly" is right on target. Despite the work that was done at all these events, the morning report totals have to be seen as approximate. People show up Saturday after roll call, or get missed. First sergeants, adjutants, and AAGs make mathematical errors -- the task of balancing totals among both columns and rows seems to challenge everyone. The great majority of practitioners don't know the difference between "total" and "aggregate." And even in cases where the a-r AAG has issued the appropriate stationery, someone will use a variation of the form that messes with the attempt to consolidate.

But I guess that's part of the fun.

Walt, I'm glad you got to play fireman. A number of units can use a good penman if you want to practice what you elsewhere preach. All you have to do is post a notice on this board -- something like: "Clerk for hire at Gettysburg [AHT or GAC, you choice]; will work for rations." I guarantee you'll get takers. But I warn you -- it actually requires work.

[Lightningslinger]

Walt, I'm glad you got to play fireman. A number of units can use a good penman if you want to practice what you elsewhere preach. All you have to do is post a notice on this board -- something like: "Clerk for hire at Gettysburg [AHT or GAC, you[r] choice]; will work for rations." I guarantee you'll get takers. But I warn you -- it actually requires work.

Michael,

In turn, I'm glad you get to play clerk. After all, it is but such is it not - play? Nice recruiting pitch. Carry on - Oh Fellow Preacher. :rolleyes: ... and keep your pencil sharp Pard.


Nope, ... For the record, I also have no interest in bending rail, nor in the interstate transportation of antique scrap, nor in trying to figure out, based on weirdly oblique comments, how all that's supposed to fit into a tactical. Got a few other things going on this summer and fall. Over and out.

As the Little Red Hen might have said ... "Did someone deign to mention the word work in the same phrase as clerk?" I heard tell they don't stand for regular guard mount... or rail road track construction either. Just joking. :) I applaud what you and others have been doing of late. I was one of your biggest advocates - in fact, even prior to your arriving on the re-created scene. I do realize that such playings can lead to better things. Sandboxes come in many forms and sizes Michael, and thus you would do well to modify your recruiting efforts to reflect it. But when the Morning Reports come in, it seems that some of us are still "trying to figure out" aren't we? Don't make it a sandbox issue.

Busy! Busy! "Got a few other things going on..." Make a note of that! :D
Walt

[Pvt Schnapps]

Michael,

In turn, I'm glad you get to play clerk. After all, it is but such is it not - play? Nice recruiting pitch. Carry on - Oh Fellow Preacher. :rolleyes: ... and keep your pencil sharp Pard.



As the Little Red Hen might have said ... "Did someone deign to mention the word work in the same phrase as clerk?" I heard tell they don't stand for regular guard mount... or rail road track construction either. Just joking, or was that playing, but when the Morning Reports come in - some of us are still "trying to figure out" aren't we?

Busy! Busy! "Got a few other things going on..." Make a note of that! :D
Walt

In the context of this thread, it is entirely appropriate to invite you to pitch in with the heavy (clerical) lifting that you seem to wish everyone other than yourself would do.

I already guessed how you'd respond, but rather hoped you'd surprise me.

For that matter, I didn't see you volunteer to move any iron yourself, though you were pretty insistent that someone else should.

Last weekend, did you at least work the water pump a little, or did you content yourself with blowing hot air on the imaginary fire?

If someone else has a useful comment to make on this or one of your other threads, I'll be happy to respond, but I think I'll not waste my time with you anymore.

[Lightningslinger]

In the context of this thread, it is entirely appropriate to invite you to pitch in with the heavy (clerical) lifting that you seem to wish everyone other than yourself would do.

... I think I'll not waste my time with you anymore.

First, the information you have volunteered over the course of these threads has, indeed, not in the least been a waste Michael. It has helped to form the insights others may have of our like-interests. In addition, you have been a worthy sparing mate. I couldn't have asked for more - or have developed the thread quite so well without your input.

Secondly, and more to the point -- I have a friend who is a letter-set printer with an 1864 Albion printing press (another BIG TOY). He has large wood type blocks which might be used, should you, in fact, ever discover a period recruiting broadside you'd like to modify for the purpose at hand. 8)

Until we converse again, on this or other riveting topics, please know me to be, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,

Walt

[bob 125th nysvi]

that 50% thing guys.

We do roll call every morning at every event (and I've seen it done with as little as 7 guys).

And we are a sub-unit of the Mifflin Guard and when we all get together EVERY company is doing it at about the same time.

And our camp inspection (MG style) are about nothing modern showing (if they are even there) as well as having your gear ready for inspection.

Maybe I'M the optimist but I think that 50% roll call number is low, way low.

[Lightningslinger]

that 50% thing guys.

We do roll call every morning at every event ...we are ... of the Mifflin Guard and when we all get together EVERY company is doing it at about the same time.

Maybe I'M the optimist but I think that 50% roll call number is low, way low.



Just to point out the obvious once again, what is the ballpark guess for the percentage of companies actually performing roll call and filling out a morning report for each day at an event on a regular basis. Notice "correctly" was not part of this question.

I'll guess less than 50%, and feel free to call me an optimist. :rolleyes:

Bob,

It may well be that neither you me or even Rog will ever know what the actually figures really are. Unless the re-enactment community see a real need to make and maintain written records it's anybody's guess. :rolleyes:

[RJSamp]

Bob,

It may well be that neither you me or even Rog will ever know what the actually figures really are. Unless the re-enactment community see a real need to make and maintain written records it's anybody's guess. :rolleyes:

We keep figures 100% of the time in both the First Federal Division and the 1st Ill Battalion. It's NO ONE's guess, it's a matter of fact.

[Lightningslinger]

Originally Posted by Lightningslinger
Bob,

It may well be that neither you me or even Rog will ever know what the actually figures really are. Unless the re-enactment community see a real need to make and maintain written records it's anybody's guess.


We keep figures 100% of the time in both the First Federal Division and the 1st Ill Battalion. It's NO ONE's guess, it's a matter of fact.

This is Good News RJ... as a matter of fact - at least for one of the larger groups within the community.

Who's the contact at FFD for such statistics and would you know how far back the records go? Do you know if such data has ever been published in our community's publications or on the Internet?

It will be interesting to know what value the FFD places on retaining such statistics and how their practices might influence other organizations to follow suite.

Appreciate it,

[RJSamp]

Who's the contact at FFD for such statistics and would you know how far back the records go? Do you know if such data has ever been published in our community's publications or on the Internet?

It will be interesting to know what value the FFD places on retaining such statistics and how their practices might influence other organizations to follow suite.


Basically it's none of your business Walt. And the number's have never been published/on the internet. They didn't back then either. I think knowing that 3rd company 2nd battalion Western Brigade at the Chick-A-Dusty in 1999 had 27 paid registrants, 18 present on Friday, 20 present on Saturday and Sunday is no big deal. Hoop dee dooden doo.

Weapon's inspection reports in writing are required at all major events I've attended.....you want rifle counts, there you go.

Unit voting privileges in the 1st ILL Battalion are granted by average attendance per unit per event per day....we've got records back to 1999. So if the 8th IL Cavalry has 22 dismounts and 5 mounted, including 1 musician, 2 NCO's, and one Officer on Saturday at Rockford in June 2001, we know it. That we lost 3 dismounted for Sunday as they had to go to work is also known.

[firstmdes]

Walt,

I am currious why the paperwork of a re-created unit attending a reenactment of a real or imaginary battle needs to be saved for all-time. As an archivist, I am very curious about the perceived value of these 'records'. What good are they to us now and what good will they be in 10 years?

And Walt, do me the favor of answering the question, not turning it around and asking back at me in different words.

Thanks! :-)

[bob 125th nysvi]

Bob,

It may well be that neither you me or even Rog will ever know what the actually figures really are. Unless the re-enactment community see a real need to make and maintain written records it's anybody's guess. :rolleyes:

Do we need to make or maintain such records? What is to be gained?

Before you go off, let me state for the record that I was a corporate records officer for 18 years and encountered quite a few managers with a pack-rat mentality.

A record should only be created and maintained if it has a legal or business purpose. And quite I frankly have yet to see either of those two criteria filled in anybody's conversations.

How many reenactors there are at a given event is irrelevant to how many reenactors there were yesterday or will be tomorrow. It is nothing more than a snap-shot in time. It does not speak to the health of the hobby since numbers alone are not an indicator as to the health of the hobby.

Having more or less reenactors is irrelevant to the economics of the hobby. We live in a capitalist society and the economics of the hobby take care of themselves. Vendors with a good business model for the prevaling economics prosper, those who don't die. Ditto for events.

And there is no legal reason to keep such records.

From a professional's point of view, the cost of creating and keeping such records is literally a waste of time and money.

[GaWildcat]

Even in the Army Records System, files have a suspense date, on which they are to be destroyed. This doesnt apply to ALL records of course, but there are files that are to be destroyed once they have lost their relevance

[tompritchett]

Moderator Hat: As it now appears that Walt is no longer monitoring this forum, I am now closing this thread. As far as I could tell only he was defending the idea of keeping a centralized system of unit morning reports and, therefore, with him out of the loop there seems to be no need to continuing the discussion. If, however, some individual thinks that there are points in this thread (not arguments against the original premise) that need further exploration, please PM me and I will consider re-opening the thread for discussion of those points.