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

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?