civilian belt use by Fed. troops

[Lone Guard]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

Hi,

Here is another picture of men wearing belts and braces.

If you look to the right in the photo there is a man sitting on what appears to be a stump. In his lap, it looks as if he is holding a human head!

As for the form fitting style, that may be. But what happens in the field is not always "in style", as the photo posted above by Curt relays (also look at the photo Andrew posted, the man to the left closest to the camera has some incredibly baggy trousers; and lo... I see a waist belt!). I do not know how many times I have read about soldiers complaining of the ill-fitting uniforms.

What I take from this, is that if you were lucky enough to be issued a pair of well fitted trousers, or find a fellow who had the size you needed while you had the size he needed, you may not have needed a belt or braces.

If you were issued loose clothing, and could not find someone to trade with (life just ain't fair), well then you might be saving up for that pair of suspenders or a belt.

Personally, I've grown sick of braces, and now use a belt in the field.

As for the original question that started this thread, I have never read of Federals using civilian waistbelts to hold their accoutrements. That still doesn't mean it did not happen, I just haven't read of it. Keep reading...

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

Hallo!

Might I suggest, THE CUT OF MEN'S CLOTHES by Nora Waugh, and A HISTORY OF COSTUME by Karl Kohler that have patterns for mid 19th century trousers.
And in general, an overview of several thousand Period images might help ascertain the NUG look and fit issue trousers when worn on the various body morphologies represented within and without the issued sizing concepts.

The reason for this was not just comfort, but for practicality as well. Braces were the main support system (belts so noted as exceptions), along with small rear adjustment belts and in the case of the older Schuylkill Arsenal pattern "stove pipe" leg style also had vents with draw string ties so that suspenders were not seen as necessary as an issued item (even though the trousers came with suspended buttons).

In brief and topp over-generalize...

As early as the 1820's there had been a demand for fashionable "ready-made" comercial clothing- and cuswotm tailors started to adopt certain mass-production innovations giving up some of the old artistic "one of a kind" system of detailed individual, personal, measurement points. Instead, they started to go toward a more standardized set of measurement "rules" based upon mathematical principles.
These eventually led to scaleable/sizable pattern drafting systems to produce the proportional garments used by the U.S. Army.
These basically differed between the older drafting system of styling pieces/parts or garment components in relation to a a fixed reference line corresponding to one of the garment's seams (the Fall Line System). And a new system, that revovled around a central vertical reference line called the Plumb Line System.
The Plumb Line system worked well with the "peg leg" trouser style popular inthe 1850's and 1860's. However, when looking at the military trousers, they are not so much new as they are a gradual evolution from the 1840's. Details were modified and refined, but the basic old pattern with its "wide" stove pipe legs remianed. Fed trousers were not of the "peg leg" fashion.

The "full seat" or baggy seat style of trousers was not only for comfort, but for the practical value of being to sit and rise without straining non-elastic suspenders (and popping buttons) or not pulling down the high waist when worn, and particulalry when worn belt adjusted or string tied down and snug.

And while the Federals continued on with the old 1840ish style and minor contractor variation, the Confederates tended to follow more closely the current contemporary styles.

If one looks at modern pants, and the Sutler Row patterns made from them, the waistband is typically straight across. If one looks at the side profile of a Period-proper pair of trousers, the waistband is much higher in the rear- and actually angles back toward the back. This not only contributes to the baggy seat (of trousers that were "loose" according to the Regs), but also prevents the the bare-skin gap often seen with reenactors wearing the shorter style shell jackets with straight-wasted and tight runofthemill "Sutler Row" trousers.

Of course, CW soldiers' unifiorms were made to a different tailoring, fit, body concept, and morphology, in terms of height, weight, and proportion- than many of we modern lads to begin with.
And that is further complicated in Period practice as well as in surviving Period images by an issuance system not based upon the actual size needs of the man receiving the next garment in the bundle.

IMHO, History is clear here. We should not play "semantics" over the definitions of words such as "form fitting" as on elad will look at a 1,000 Period images and appreciate the look, while another will look at 1,000 reenactors and see the spray-painted on, skin tight, worn at the hips, look of
some of the runofthemill "Skinner Row" modern pants sans zipper fly, belt loops, and patch pockets.

Curt

[Ian McWherter]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

While there are accounts of soldiers complaining about being issued "poor fitting" clothing and there are photographs showing soldiers wearing trousers that are a little big, in my own personal observations it seems there are far more soldiers (Federal and Confederate) wearing trousers that actually fit them correctly. In the reenacting world we're not subject to the whims of period fashion or fellow members of "society" (yes they had one then) judging us for wearing clown pants belted over and buttoned on our suspender button. We're also certainly not going to get in trouble for presenting an un-martial appearance, since most hardcores are in a perpetual campaign mode where all military regulations fly out the window, never mind the long periods of static camp in between when drill, cleanliness, and polishing brass would generally be expected (just look at all those clean shaven young men in photographs).

In making clothing for others I've noticed that many reenactors often order trousers that are one to two sizes bigger than their natural waist measurement, making belts or suspenders a necessity. Here's a fact about period men's trouser fashion: Suspenders are not meant to hold up your trousers, they're simply meant to keep them in place. Your trousers should fit you well enough in the waist so that if you were to remove your suspenders they won't fall to the ground or your hips. If they do your trousers are too big! There were at the time endless amounts of tailor shops providing cheap quick alterations (taking in the waist of a pair of trousers is pretty darn simple and quick, hell there's several tailor shops right down the street from me that'll do it cheap and in the same day), and if you absolutely couldn't find the time to have your trousers altered by a civilian tailor there's always the tailors in army camps and if you absolutely couldn't afford to have them do it (you'd have to be one cheap broke ass to not afford them!) you could simply take in the waist of your own trousers, its a simple procedure that yields great results. But then, we are talking about modern Americans and if it can't be done in 30 seconds, FARK IT! I'll just belt that bad boy, button my trousers onto my suspender button, or just move the button over.

Just my opinion.:)

[Andrew Kasmar]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

Hi,

In this picture, the two dead soldiers in the middle appear to be wearing braces.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: civilian belt use by Fed. troops

Hallo!

Moderator hat on...

Trying to put this thread back on track with the original question as to documentatrion for the practice of wearing civilian belts either as belts, or as waistbelts to suspend accoutrements from...
(Or the side discussion as to what the word "fit" denotes and connotes at the time of the ACW versus today.)

The surviving photographic record adequately demonstrates that some Federal and Confederate soldiers did wear braces/suspenders.
The question is rather, "civilian" belts.

Curt