civilian belt use by Fed. troops

[claynpendleton]

Hello all,
I am curious as to how common the use of civilian "roller buckle" style belts by US infantry would have been. It makes sense that those without braces (how many times would one have to pop a suspender button before switching to a belt to hold up one's trowsers?!) likely wore such belts under their coats...but is there evidence of the use of such belts as the main service belt (in lieu of the "US" plated belt)? Already looked at all the previous threads on belts which did not completely answer this question.
Thanks in advance,
Clay N. Pendleton

[Charles Heath]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

Plenty of nice period images out there in historyland to peruse and ponder to include federals with civilian belts, odd pieces of harness, and my personal favorite -- the ever handy sling adapted to a fine belt.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

Hallo!

"I am curious as to how common the use of civilian "roller buckle" style belts by US infantry would have been. It makes sense that those without braces (how many times would one have to pop a suspender button before switching to a belt to hold up one's trowsers?!) likely wore such belts under their coats...but is there evidence of the use of such belts as the main service belt (in lieu of the "US" plated belt)?"

Just a tip or two on researching a question...

IMHO, it is better, best, to stay "neutral" in forming a hypothesis as to what was done or not done. "It makes sense that those without braces (how many times would one have to pop a suspender button before switching to a belt to hold up one's trowsers?!) likely wore such belts under their coats..." can lead one to be biased in favor of the positive and influence the analysis, interpretation, and inferences drawn from the research data collected.

In brief and to over-generalize, NUG, braces were not an item of common issue (exceptions so noted) , so the lads that had needed them had to procure them for themselves from home or "private purchase."
One has to rely on Period accounts or references to braces, and/or images of coatless men, to gage how common or better yet prevalent the presence or use of braces were as one cannot see underneath coats and jackets.
But, IMHO, because we cannot see what was under men in coats/jackets, should not be used to say that it is "likely" men wore civilian "roller buckle' belts.
The hypothesis that Civil War soldiers wore civilian belts to hold up their trousers needs to be weighed in the light of the weight of evidence beginning with what was issued, what access was available as to time and place, and what Period accounts and images say about the personal choices men made.

Regarding men using civiian belts as waistbelts to suspend their accoutrements from- the same holds true:

1. What does the Historical Record say? And

2. What does the research prove or disprove in terms of the time, place, unit, and man being protrayed?

3. And, what part or whole of Nos. 1 and 2 is important to one's Mental Picture.

For one image of a rifle sling being used as a waistbelt, look at the image of two 4th Michigan lads...

Curt

[Secechsoldier]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

HI,

I have read many thing's on Roller style belt's, I have three ( Coverted Cartriged Box Sling ) myself! One in which I use when I do My Fedral Impression, The Book: American Military And Naval Belts, 1802-1902 has Great Picture's of these! I think that would help out very much on your study!

________________________________
W.Verbal
Mossy Creek Mess,

[claynpendleton]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

Thanks for the feedback guys...as soon as I unpack all my books from my move I'm going to take another look at all the images.
-Clay Pendleton

[Gawd Awful Lad]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

Would anyone like to post some pics of feds wearing these in the field. Seems to me that belts and braces are more of a trend in the hobbie then actually done, then used in the field by the real guys. Maybe they had them in winter quarters when they had access to such luxuries. Its cheaper, and easier just to move your top button over, or adjust your back tie.

[Hard Case62]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

I have seen plenty of evidence of the U.S. service belt used as a waist belt, and have tried it out in the field, but the practicality of it is dubious at best.

Matt Sternad

[Swag]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

I have a number of photos showing men wearing waste belts, if you just go on the LOC and check out some of the photos you will spot such things in minutes.

[Andrew Kasmar]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

Would anyone like to post some pics of feds wearing these in the field. Seems to me that belts and braces are more of a trend in the hobbie then actually done, then used in the field by the real guys. Maybe they had them in winter quarters when they had access to such luxuries. Its cheaper, and easier just to move your top button over, or adjust your back tie

Hi,

Here is a photo of men wearing braces. You maybe right about that ( in alot of photos, the men are wearing jackets and coats, which makes in impossible to tell if they are wearing them or not), but for my part I wear a belt. The reason for this is becasue, even if I moved the button over and adjusted the back buckle or tie of my trousers; I would still need something to hold up my trousers.

Andrew

[fahtz]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

Thanks Andrew!

Notice in that picture you CAN see braces, but you can also see at least one, maybe two fellows wearing their trousers without any sort of device to help hold them up. I like that picture a lot! So much to look at with so few men!

[Andrew Kasmar]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

Hi,

Here is another picture of men wearing belts and braces.

[Gawd Awful Lad]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

Again these are posted camps. Any guys on the move to or the dead on the battlefield lack belts. Now some may say, "but Brett, the dead could have been pilaged or what have you." Right but you do see in alot of federal dead pics "poor boy" suspenders. There is also an issue size in the federal army. So even if your trousers didnt fit, accounts suggest they traded with a comrade. To me it seems like a trend because in any sort of diary entries you never really hear about guys asking for belts from home. Trousers for the period were supposed to be worn form fitting as was the style. If a few pics suggest a few guys out of a million wearing them, and the pics are in stagnant camps, or like the mortar picture a fixed encampment outside of petersburg, I see no reason to wear them on campaign. Not to mention if your accoutrements are worn properly over your gear or cough cough you tuck your jacket in, that also helps in the process. It just seems to me that while marching and fighting all the time you find out what works rather then adding extra baggage. Personal preference is probably the key in this discussion. I do not like getting the command rest, plunking down and feeling an extra belt grind into my mid section.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

Hallo!

"Trousers for the period were supposed to be worn from fitting as was the style."

Historically, "form fitting" was not the style of the Civil War era, either in pattern, cut, or fashion.

And here is the Fort Woodbury image of the 4th Michigan lads...



Curt

[Charles Heath]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

Why, yes, Curt, and the assumed notion of "form fitting" goes counter to the utilitarian function of the well known federal trouser aspect known as the "big baggy ass."

[texandrummer61]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

I don't think Brett is saying "form-fitting" as in leg hugging skinny jeans, circa 2008, he's just trying to make the point that pants typically fit tightly, at least around the waist, and if not, they could have been easily modified by moving the button over a little bit. Also, while you couldnt exactly call those pants "form fitting", they are certainly well fitting. The tight waist/ wide bottoms seems to be a big thing from the period, as I have seen in trousers such as the Courtney Jenkins trousers, which have an extremely small waist, under 30 inches, and if you lay the cuffs of the trousers flat, they are about 20 cm wide.