What a difference a decade and a half makes!

[GoingDownTheLine]

What a wonderful board! I'm very happy to have found this forum; as I prepare to jump back into this hobby/obsession of living history (this time as an adult,) I look forward to relying upon the combined experience of the members of this forum to help me begin on the right track.

First, a bit about myself. After becoming interested in the American Civil War during the fifth grade, I was lucky enough to be directed to a local Confederate artillery reenacting group. Along with my father, I attended several functions with the group, ranging from living history events, battle re-enactments and unit-only training retreats. Because I was only a kid at the time, I had little appreciation of the nuances of the hobby, and simply enjoyed what was going on at face value.

Now I am 26, an amateur historian and professional attorney. I am finally able to devote the necessary time, energy and funds to Civil War reenacting, and would like to start off on the right foot. I am currently searching for Confederate infantry units in the Eastern Iowa/Western Illinois area, but am more than willing to be flexible.

I've spent a great deal of time over the past week reading over this forum and the AC forum. I do have a few questions regarding general concepts that I have picked up from this board that seem to be in conflict with what I learned of reenacting back in the day. I have gone back about 50 pages in the archives, and was not able to satisfy these questions, so if I have missed something, please let me know. I have several reference books on order from Amazon and am eagerly awaiting their arrival to refine my individual impression, but in the meantime, I would really enjoy your feedback regarding these concepts.

"The Scavenging Confederate": I have always been under the impression that it was common for Confederate soldiers in all theatres to scavenge clothing and equipment from their better-supplied enemies. Probably the most visible representation of this is the sky-blue Union trousers worn by Confederate soldiers. Other, less obvious examples include the use of Union accoutrements, hats, weapons, etc. I can vividly remember many Confederate re-enactors I was with back in the day abiding by this convention, and I doubt I need to point out the plethora of sky-blue trousers sported by the Confederate troops in movies such as "Gettysburg" and "Glory."

However, I have noticed a lack of enthusiasm for this viewpoint on this forum. In fact, it seems as though a Confederate impression sporting the sky-blue Union trousers would be considered incorrect 9 times out of 10. I'd really enjoy any information or discussion on this topic, as I would like to avoid falling into any clichéd "reenactorisms." On the other hand, if historically defensible, it seems like a good way to save a little dough while being prepared to portray either the blue or the gray as needed.

Butternut: Again, the pictures and memories I have of my childhood in reenacting shows a great deal of butternut coloring, though most of the websites for progressive Confederate reenacting units show little if any of this color. Is this another case of the overstatement of the "poorly equipped Confederate soldier," or just a backlash to the over-abundance of the color?

I'm sure there are other questions I have, but for right now, I would really appreciate any opinions or discussion on these questions. As I said, I don't have a unit or specific impression in mind yet, but so far it looks like the Confederate reenacting groups in my area will all be portraying a Western theater impression. Thanks in advance for any opinions or information!

Sam Bailey
Orphan

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

I'm sure several folks are going to chime in here, but for now, do yourself a favor and buy a copy any way you can get it of "Cadet Gray and Butternut Brown" by Tom Arliskas. It will answer those questions and much, much more. The reenactorism of CS sky blue trousers is overplayed, with the exception of sky and light blue JEANCLOTH trousers. The reappropriation of Federal trousers for CS use is overplayed on the most part, but there are some proper times and places , Sharpsburg/Antietam, Harper's Ferry, etc, come to mind. As for the butternut mythology/mystique, alot of that has to do with the dyes used in the production of gray cloth. That is talked about in the book, but for short, often times a garment started out in various shades of gray, but oxidized over years, sometimes decades, into a brownish or tannish butternut. Butternut uniforms in themselves aren't necessarily incorrect, just not the old sutler-row variety tan wool and brown kersey variety. There are several sources available for natural dyed jeancloth today, but you have to look pretty hard or buy second hand.

[bsbaker]

Originally Posted by GoingDownTheLine

Because I was only a kid at the time, I had little appreciation of the nuances of the hobby, and simply enjoyed what was going on at face value.

On the other hand, if historically defensible, it seems like a good way to save a little dough while being prepared to portray either the blue or the gray as needed.

Sam Bailey
Orphan

1. WOW!! I remember those days as well. My first uniform was something along the lines of a Richmond Depot Jacket, Sky Blue Trousers and a kepi w/ much tinsel.......I had a very authentic tin plate adorned with the letters "CS", and a canteen I thought at the time was and "1858 smoothside". I couldn't ever figure out why they called it a smoothside if it had rings on it. I thought this was as real as it got, and I was doing a Western Theatre impression. Even though I looked about as authentic as a Tie Fighter Pilot reenacting the American Revolution, I had more fun than I can describe in words here. For me at least, the older I get the more fun it is to strive for authenticity.


2. Please don't take this as me being a jerk, but if you are concerned about saving money, forget it. It's not going to happen. This hobby is expensive, not to mention addictive....

Is there a particular unit you have in mind or are you still searching?

[Tom Scoufalos]

Being a staunch pragmatist at heart, I am going to go against the grain here since I think it will answer the spirit of your question, if admittedly not with any added information or benefit.

In short, I would say yes - you can wear a good quality pair of Federal issue sky blue trousers for your Confederate impression. This is not to dispute Ross or anyone else; the info he gives is absolutely right as I understand it as well. The point is that you just don't necessarily want to make it the only option you turn to "forever". It should be the exception and not the rule overall. Judging by your admission on the hobby's material addictiveness, it doesn't sound like your the type that would do that anyway...eventually, you'll get the bug to step it up. But to start, you're not gonna get kicked outta any events. There are far more egregious sins than wearing sky blues in that fashion. Just don't settle on it for good.

Also, until you settle in and really get the fever, there are other items you can carry over for a time, and can continue to carry over from time to time thereafter, but as I mentioned above, you wouldn't want to necessarily establish the practice as a permanent or fixed/unbending habit. For example, a good quality cartridge box will for all practical purposes work for either impression, until you amass two or six like a lot of us have. A good two rivet Federal scabbard will work for both for awhile, as well as haversack. Maybe a good shield front cap box, too. Belt and slings...not so much; same with headgear. Underclothing and shoes can easily serve for both.

Don't even get me started on knapsacks. Ross knows about me and knapsacks

So, to summarize, you can get by for awhile with a fairly substantial amount of gear to carry you over either way in my view; the main thing...in my view...is not to settle on it forever, not to become fixed or unbending in that manner, and not to make it gospel.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

I would not disagree.

But in my heresies...

I would suggest you consider sitting down, and as far as possible mentally formulate or better yet write out a Mental Picture for yourself of what you see yourself doing and where you see yourself fitting in.

Because, in the span of a decade and a half, some "things" have evolved and moved on in terms of research and documentation, material culture, impressions/personae, and activities while some "things" are exactly the say they were in say 1994.

IMHO...

Without a Mental Picture and/or a unit with standards and guidelines that need to be met or demonstrated, one runs the very real risk of buying clothing and kit that one may immediately or months down the road find to be "too high end" for the less "authentic" segments of our hobbies, or "too low end" for the more "authentic" segments of the CW Community.

Match your Mental Picture to your hobby segment or community, or your community to your Mental Picture. It will save one aggravation, frustration, strife, and at the every least... money.

Regarding the other, in brief and to over-generalize...

Considerations of unit being protrayed, time, and place are key factors. While there are researched and doucumented instances of clothing, food, and gear shortages in Confederate service, there is also a phenomena that came out of Lost Cause Ideology of the near universal "ragged, naked, barefoot, and starving" Confederate heroically struggling and suffering for The Cause.
The "myth" of the Ragged Confederate can pervade some sections of the CW Community.

The Butternut tree provides a natural dyestuff that unmoirdanted dyes brownish or tan, but mordoanted dyes gray that fades with time and exposure to grayish tan and drab tans.
So do a number of dyes such as (iron mordanted) logwood or sumac.

What happened then as now, is that folks seeing these expedient natural vegetable dyed clothing in their grays and tans, the term "butternut" became generalized. Much in the way "kleenex" became a tissue and not just the Kleenex" brand of tissues. Or "xerox" machine became a copy machine even when not the Xerox company product.

As shared, one difference now versus then, is that we have Confederate type fabrics being reproduced such as jeans, kersey, satinette, or cassimere that are being dyed with vegetable dystuffs making more exacting copies of actual clothing. Where "then" we had most all vendors selling aniline dyed wool broadcloth for Confederate uniforms that were just modern chemically dyed various light, medium and dark grays, sundry tans, buttescotches, coffee browns, etc.

Others' mileage will vary...

CHS
Heretic

[mmescher]

In discussing the term butternut, I'm of the opinion the term referred to the color of the cloth and not to the source of dye material. The range of butternut trees is northern and only in a very small area does the range dip into the states that made up the Confederacy (Silvics of Forest Trees of the United States). So having butternuts to use for dyes would have been very difficult.

Natural butternut is also known as white walnut. The wood is a shade of brown. I'd expect that some of the dyes used to produce a shade of grey may have faded upon exposure to sun and weather to a shade of brown.

Michael Mescher

[mmescher]

I was discussing the brown dye with my wife and she indicated that sumac with an iron mordant initially is grey but fades to brown.

Michael Mescher

[hanktrent]

Originally Posted by mmescher

In discussing the term butternut, I'm of the opinion the term referred to the color of the cloth and not to the source of dye material.

I'd even take it one step further and say it refers to the man and not the cloth. Okay, maybe not always, but I think there was at least an implication that someone in butternut was the kind of person who wore, or who had to wear, homemade or substitute-dyed or not-quite-citified clothing.

Before the war, butternut clothing and by extension the person who wore it, was considered crude and backwoodsy. Didn't need to be a southern thing, because there were plenty of backwoods folks in the north--maybe even more noticeable ones, since they stood out more in contrast to the city folk in factory cloth.

Since "butternut" already had an established connotation, dull brownish cloth didn't need to be literally dyed with butternuts, it just needed to be home-made or crudely dyed to come under the catch-all term "butternut," which was already in the language waiting to be applied.

It was similar to "homespun" cloth, which didn't need to be literally made of thread spun at home, it was just what you called cloth that didn't come from a factory, even if it was woven at home of machine-spun thread.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Artyman]

Fact 1: Uniforms in the field and on campaign do not last very long, only months.

Fact 2: Natural dyes can and do fade upon exposure over many months/years.

Fact 3: Natural dyes result in a wide range of shades. Some not very grey but others very grey. Naturally every attempt was made to have as grey a result as possible.

Fact 4: Original recorded observations mention "butternut" being seen. However, is one man's butternut only another mans grey?

Impasse: Did many CS uniforms last long enough to fade?

Observation: Surviving uniforms are 145+ years old. Certainly enough time to fade and not represent the actual color during the war.

Conclusion 1: CS uniforms (that were not imported) probably were mostly grey long enough for them to be worn out. Units hitting the field after a year in garrison could have some uniforms old enough to be faded out to "butternut".

Conclusion 2: Given that uniform didn't last long in the field and that trousers wore out faster than jackets, captured union blue trousers would already be somewhat worn when captured and not last very long after that. Further, the wound damage would make many that were left on the field rendered unfit to wear. Therefore, probably not many actually got scavanged and even fewer lasted long enough after that to commonly seen.

Perhaps this logic is overly simplistic. We can overthink the simple notion into a false conclusion very easily.

In any case, black and white images do not show much diff between light blue and grey. From this we can't draw any real numbers of these trousers from surviving documents. One may assume that some were captured and worn until replaced, but to state as a fact that it was common can only be an assumption. Though we know that bodies were stripped clean on the battlefield, there were always fewer dead than the numbers moving across the field doing the stripping. Again, this would suggest that even if the CS troops did wear Union trousers there would not have been a majority doing so and the wear out rate was greater than the frequency of battlefields being available.

IMHO, stay away from Union trousers in your rebel impression. Far more common to see civilian pants than bonified Union pants.

Oh yes...one more thing...WELCOME BACK!!

Harry

[flattop32355]

As for scrounged equipment, the general rule was that captured gear was collected and distributed through proper army channels, rather than simply men picking up what they needed off the field.

Obviously, there are many recorded cases of the latter practice taking place, but it was not the official way of doing things.

As the Confederate supply system became more efficient and streamlined during the war, relying on captured gear became less critical.

Cleburne's men wore captured Yankee trowsers at Perryville, which led to them being shot at for a time by their comrades. IIRC, Forrest required all captured federal greatcoats to be dyed black to avoid the same problem.

There are also cases where Federal soldiers were given captured Confederate items (better rifle-muskets at Vicksburg).

We have the advantage of choosing what we will wear. The responsibility then becomes to choose wisely. That responsibility also extends to other aspects of reenacting, as well.