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...lerVII_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...ersonMarks.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...ersonGowdy.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