Lack of Uniformity

[BobWerner]

A recent phone conversation with a gentleman whose opinion on this particular subject I very much respect has had me thinking about a peculiar situation that exists among reenactors and living history types. During our discussion we talked about the various levels of quality and attention to historical detail that is available with the clothing and uniforms produced by the many different makers for our Civil War time period. I was, as usual, complaining about imports (it's not just a living history thing with me, either), particularly those from Pakistan. Needless to say, I was very critical, but the gentleman made a good point that I had not given a whole lot of consideration to. He commented that with all the higher end makers out there offering such a variety patterns and materials based on solid historical evidence, we nonetheless have a problem created by well-intended folks making purchases they're rightfully proud of, but that contribute to a distinct lack of uniformity that would surely have existed during the period we're attempting to portray. Add to that the typical small messes that may have individual uniform guidelines or recommendations are frequently joined with others to form companies at campaigner or more progressive type events and you end up with a less than optimal overall impression. To further the problem, the weapons used are also of a greater variety than a typical company would have experienced in the 1860's. It seems we've broken out of the "cookie-cutter" habit and into the "coats of many colors" habit.
The point that was being made was that the flocks of folks who rush into places like Regimental Quartermaster to uniform and arm themselves at their companys' requests are actually appearing with a more uniform presence than many of us who are plopping down big bucks to have the latest, bestest, kewlest, most accurate coat, trousers or whatever. I'm not, in any way, advocating massed purchases of Pakistani goods by the more historically inclined. What I am asking is if we are not doing ourselves a great disservice, from a historical point of view, by not paying much more attention to uniformity? This is becoming much more apparent with Federal groups, too, but the Confederates are clearly getting pretty far off the mark.
I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Respects,

[Dave Grieves]

The circuit of events at the highest rung of the authenticity ladder doesn't really have this problem. Uniform and equipment standards are set, inspections take place and, generally, problems with uniformity are resolved. Last year at Payne's Farm, for example, there were several people on the Yankee side who were very upset that their leather canteen slings would not be allowed to be used. That's uniform detail in minutia, but thems the rules.

Not every event is that strict. And there are events that are hawked as "campaigner" events that don't really fill the bill. Authenticity in general and uniformity will fall away where standards are lax or unenforced.

Of course, you have to bear in mind that the implementation of strict standards is what causes people to think that authentics are "mean."

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
(History versus Authenticity versus Detail makes for a crowded pin head...)

This is an on-going pendulum swing that gets discussed every so often here, on the AC Forum, and on other boards and fora.
In the "spirit" of the thing, yes- with each man US or CS going out and even buying premium goods from premium vendors/makers, whose products highly compare to the raw materials, patterns and forms, and methods of construction or technology- it is possible (and observed) that the overall impression of the group is that no TWO MEN served together in the same company.

However, the heresy is, when looking at say a "CW era company, there is NEVER EVER cookie-cutter uniformity.
The first factor is when and where the company or regiment was uniformed and outfitted, for the very first time, and how many of what arsenal or contractors' goods were on the shelves when the requisitions came in to be filled? (Looking for the "By Like Company" concept of regimental issuances where the most men received the most "same" goods, as far as the numbers of any one thing went...).
The second factor is what the company is doing to use up or lose clothing and gear? Hard marches and hard campaigns put a strain on the items themselves as well as the ability of the Quartermaster and Ordnance folks to "resupply" and in what "quantities."
A third factor is how close, or how far, is the unit from a "resupply?"
A fourth factor is the Clothing Allowance System as well as the US arsenal and the CS commutation and arsenal systems. Looking at "routine" and "emergency" type resupply requisitions, not all men, needed everything, and some men were allowed to pass on "new" if the "old" was still serviceable.
A fifth factor is unit consolidations. As larger units were shot up, they were often "condensed" into smaller unit groupings- mixing men in a brigade down to a regiment down to a battalion down to companies, etc.
Etc., etc.
And last but hardly least, is that even with the same clothing, accoutrements, and gear, the individual notions, druthers, field experience, the size of the men, etc., not everything is worn or carried in exactly the same way as veteran soldiers adapt and adopt.

Having said all that, IMHO, it is one of my heresies that (of course depending upon the unit, time, and place of the impression) there should generally be more "similarity" along the lines of "By Like Company" issuance. First with weapons. Then with accoutrements. Then with clothing and gear. (with druthers and personalizations so noted).
And when each and every man looks entirely too much different, even though they are all uniformed in Sekela, Daley, Brown, Wedeward, Nolin, Blunt, Hock, etc., etc. uniforms- they can be presenting the wrong image for some unit's time, place, and circumstances.
IMHO, the key is to fix through research and documentation, the particular unit's time, place, and circumstances- and then try to appear more like the period images rather than the images of reenactors at events.
When 100 lads have 100 different blouses, or 100 different canteen covers, or 100 different blankets, or 100 different accoutrement sets, it can present an unbelievable image.
Where it gets tricky, is in determining how many out of the 30, 50, or 100 can have reflect "campaign" loss, "arsenal/contractor" differences, "skipping on the Clothing Allowance," etc.?

Over the years of reenacting, there has been a Reenacting Tradition of sorts where Confederates were allowed if not encouraged to all look different as a "CS thing,"- and where to a point the blue blouse and sky blue trousers of a Federal tended to even out the "look" at 50, 100, or 300 yards more easily.

Others' mileage and heresies, will of course, vary...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Frenchie_2006]

There's a period quote (can't find the exact reference) to the effect that the longer they served, the more the soldiers looked like day laborers who had bought second-hand military clothing. There's a photo of a unit of Regular infantry going out on campaign with all sorts of old uniform pieces, because why wear out your newly-issued duds when you have serviceable stuff at hand? In Guadalcanal Diary (WWII) the men are described as looking as variegated as "a bunch of pirates". Finally, there's the old axiom that no combat-ready unit has ever passed inspection.

[TheQM]

Bob,

I belong to an unit that does mainly a Confederate impression. We desided a long time ago to try to maintain an uniform impression. We buy jean cloth and have a lady who makes up RD2 jackets and trousers for us, using our cloth and specs. Every new recruit is expected to buy one of these uniforms. The look doesn't gets too uniform, since we never seem to be able to get the exact same cloth twice in a row!

We are lucky, since many of the issue records for the unit survived, and we know jackets and trousers were issued in bunches. It was rare for just a few to be issued.

As a matter of interest, During the 4th. Quarter of 1864, Company B, 4th Texas Infantry, the unit we portray, received:

32 Pants (all the issue records refer to pants, not trousers)
32 Jackets
64 Shirts
32 Wool Shirts
64 Drawers
32 Pair of Shoes
64 Pair of Socks
32 Blankets

At the time, there were 28 men on the Company Roll. These Rebels weren't too ragged!

[coffeeboiler]

From what I have read and seen, I believe it would be very rare to find a Company in which the men were not sporting a combination of old and new equipment. The army was, and still is, a very frugal service that has a long-standing practice of continuing to issue anything that is still serviceable and only replacing gear that is no longer serviceable. Members of our unit that served in Vietnam tell of the randomness in which gear was issued (even in boot camp when they were all issued gear at the same time) where some of the guys in the Company where handed new stuff and some where handed gear left over from WWII. The QM simply issued whatever he had on his shelves. Old or new didn’t matter so long as it was still serviceable. Gear would then be replaced on a case by case basis as men lost stuff, or it wore out. The guys now serving in the Gulf tell similar stories of the mix of gear with their Companies.

A review of Col. Mansfields 1858 report on the inspection of the troops out west, also documents the variety of gear in service at that time by Company at each fort. Unfortunately, I’ve got that report packed away somewhere, but recall the report listing how many canteens where gutta-percha and how many tin, etc. for each Company and how many Mississippi rifles and other rifles, etc. However, I do believe that there was some effort during the pre-years to make the issuance of the more noticeable uniform changes to the new Hardee hat and dark blue trousers on a Company by Company basis. Certainly one can see significant differences in uniform and gear when viewing period photos through the detail available from the LOC tiff files. One example is the 1863 photo of the 8th U.S. Visible within this photo is a mix of the old 1855 rifles with the 1861 rifles. The men are also sporting a great variety of headgear too.

[TheQM]

"The army was, and still is, a very frugal service that has a long-standing practice of continuing to issue anything that is still serviceable and only replacing gear that is no longer serviceable."

Bob,

When it come to equipmenmt, what you said is very true today, and I'm sure was equally true during the Civil War. Clothing is a different matter. I spent over twenty years in the service, and other then field jackets, was never issued used clothing. On occusion, you could buy slightly used clothing at Clothing Sales, but it was not a issue item.

I can't believe it was any different during the Civil War. With the exception of under garments, the soldiers were issued only one piece of clothing at a time. Where was the QM going to get used clothing, from the dead, wounded, or sick? In the Federal Service, I could see a Company issuing out used Great Coats, that had been put in storage, and had been signed for by someone who didn't need it anymore; much like the field jackets I received, that were actually Company property. Oh yeah, for accountability purposes, those used field jackets were entered on my TA-50 Form, not my clothing records.

[BobWerner]

Thanks to all for the responses. You're raising some good points. However, for clarification purposes, I realize I need to go into a bit further detail in what I was referring to in regard to the PRESENT lack of uniformity as actually compared to those of 1861-5 whom we are attempting to portray.
In my initial post I wasn't referring to the disparity of clothing items or variety, nor the many ways soldiers did, and still do, express their individuality. I also realize that different periods of the war and different theatres contribute to what the troops looked like. There are early war photos of troops such as the 9th Mississippi that are wearing just about anything and everything. To the opposite extreme, there are photos of units where each man appears almost identical to the next. Obviously, there are also numerous other circumstances in which soldiers aren't carbon copies of one another.
My point was in questioning just how well we're actually portraying how they truly appeared. When taking into consideration the many period photos and records of clothing and equipment issued, then comparing the look we present, I still believe we're missing the mark. With the quality and finely detailed work of so many modern makers, I see many, many fine individual impressions that harken back to the soldiers of the Civil War. It's when we're grouped together in companies and battalions that the multitude of variation really sticks out like a sore thumb.
When looking at photos from events, it's easy enough to see "coats of many colors" that I earlier referred to. Naturally, some units are better at avoiding these problems than others, but it seems pretty widespread. I just finished looking at one photo of Confederates at a well known event who all belong to a well known and highly respected unit. There were eight men in the photo and not one bore even the slightest similarity to another with the exception that the majority were wearing jackets. The materials were different; some patterns were distinctly different; weapons and equipment were different, and no two uniforms were even close to the same color. Men in the same company, while maintaining the variations we discussed previously, would still have presented a much greater uniformity than did these troops. Even among the Federal side, you can easily find far more variation than what existed among the 1860's soldiers. To find a mess where two fellows are wearing Martin contract blouses of different materials and shades of blue along with two fellows wearing Schuylkill Arsenal of different materials and hues, one carrying a '61 Springfield; one with a '42 Springfield or Harper's Ferry; one with a burnished Enfield and the other with a blued Enflield. Again, individually they all present a highly accurate impression. Together, they look like they all went out and bought whatever they each preferred rather than having been attired through government issue.
Take some time to visit various websites where they have unit and event photos posted. Then compare to period photos and accounts. I still feel we're missing the mark with the extent of individuality in our impressions. Keep the discussion going. I'd like to hear more thoughts on the subject.
Thanks.

[flattop32355]

Together, they look like they all went out and bought whatever they each preferred rather than having been attired through government issue.

Exactly!

Isn't that precisely what happens? Each reenactor goes out and buys his gear as an individual, not as a unit (with rare exception, and usually then only for certain items, such as a common shirt, haversack, etc.)

The government rarely chooses to outfit reenactor units of any era. Therefore, the market for large numbers of similar items is quite low. And I, for one, am not really thrilled at the idea of some other reenactor, no matter how respected in the hobby, telling me exactly what I must buy with my own dollars. (Did I mention that the government paid for those mass-produced items?)

I doubt many, if any, modern day makers of the desired goods have the capacity to crank out the required number of widgets to supply all of us in similar fashion, even if the market was there for it. (Did I mention that those original items were through government contracts?)

So the odds of any large group of us ever looking like the cookie-cutter pictures of men all attired with common gear is slim. That's just one of the compromises, such as safety issues, that separate us from the "real" world of the CW soldier. You may be able to do it with a moderately sized group for specific items (Hardee hats, Springfield rifle-muskets), but not over all.

But your point is well taken.

[reb64]

This is the great debate i have been known for writing on for the past few years. Thanks for revisiting it. My only purpose in responding is to help strengthen the pastime. As I have said before, the push for more authentic uniforms has caused much of this situation. every season it seems there is a new revelation into material and equipment that soldiers had at various times and specifc battles. What may have been thought orrect one year might be considered incorrect the following. Many are caught up into this and it is costly. those that can afford the latest garment made by the reigning top makers buy them, others cling to their old standbys. What you get is a unit that is miss matched as you stated. I have voiced at my meetings that our group ought to at least try to outfit ourselves reasonbly close to what was worn at the specific battles insead of having one jaket for all events. This leads to hurt feelings over whose will wins out. the result usually is a mess with all the egos involved and their idea of what should be worn. i am impressed by those strong units who do look uniform, even if they are incorrect, like the large groups of c depot wearers at corinth, or the mixed gray wearing boys where jean would be more appropriate. What is one to do? Our group has finally decreed a certain jean color and trouser requirement but there are those who still stand out. Being westerners, we need about 4 uniforms: early war civilian/militia, generic frocks, commutation jackets or c depots and federal for backup. unless everyone gets the same cut of cloth, and since we live very far apart from each other, we usually end up with the lack of uniformity mentioned. try as we might, their won't be uniformity until commanders have a rock solid guidline, even though it may be a expensive upgrade for the unit. I think dressing out appropriate for the specific event is more important than sporting the high dollar maker items just for individual posing. unity is the key and less individualism, which i see is getting harder and harder to comply with. Thats the difference between now and then. Back then they were together all the time, just not the weekend. they were supplied or bought from the same makers usually.