Tucking trousers

[rick35ovi]

Two years ago while Gettysburg at the Horse Soldier i stumbled upon a photo of what was described as an Ohio infantryman that had his trousers tucked into tall boots. Was this a common practice? does anyone have any photos ? I seen plenty of examples of Calvary And Artillery and officers, I was just interested to see if many enlisted infantry practiced this as well. If this is an old topic i appologize.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Tucking trousers

Hallo!

In brief and to over-generalize...

IMHO, being a personal preference type of item, and driven by druthers, finances, access, etc.,...

One can easily find Period images of some few lads in boots.

(As with many things, the "danger" is in having say 30 lads our of 35 in a recreated infantry company all wearing boots as it distorts the "prevalence" unless is portraying a unit where 30 out of 35 wore boots for a particular time and place. ;) )

Here is an image stolen from another current thread:



Curt

[Andrew Kasmar]

Re: Tucking trousers

Hi,

Here are some pictures: (These pictures are also stolen from a thread)

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Tucking trousers

Hallo!

In brief and to over-generalize...

IMHO, being a personal preference type of item, and driven by druthers, finances, access, etc.,...

One can easily find Period images of some few lads in boots.

(As with many things, the "danger" is in having say 30 lads our of 35 in a recreated infantry company all wearing boots as it distorts the "prevalence" unless is portraying a unit where 30 out of 35 wore boots for a particular time and place. ;) )

Here is an image stolen from another current thread:



Curt

================================================== =======
Curt:

Are those "Special Model" 61 Springfields those boys are issued in the photo you posted?

Kevin Dally

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Tucking trousers

Hallo!

Alas... the image that was posted has too low of resolution to blow up the detail I would like before making a commitment... ;) :)

The light bounce (refraction) is annoying, but yes, I would venture a guess that they are SM 1861's based upon the "serpentine" look of the hammers versus the look of M1863 hammers. The play of light varies gun to gun but I think I am seeing the SM 1861's more "curvy" hammer and the somewhat "egg shape" of the rear of the lock plate.

Curt

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Tucking trousers

"and the somewhat "egg shape" of the rear of the lock plate."

Curt:

I was looking at the hammers also, but had not looked closely at the shape of the lock plates.

Amazing what these photos reveal to discerning eyes.

Kevin Dally

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Tucking trousers

Hallo!

The nice thing about the LOC images is that they are so "fine" that one can do close-up work examining details.
However, most times they are scanned at lower resolution, and shared and posted at ever lower and lower quality.

But yes, one can often find interesting things. Like in this image the sight leaves on the musket belonging to the lad behind the forked tree (someone put a rock into the fork) on the right (viewer's left) are loose and flopped down- a problem I have on my M1861 that needs "fixed."

;) :)

Curt

[rogue]

Re: Tucking trousers

Boots have been showing up in several threads of late. Boots versus brogans.
Recall that many of the soldiers in the Federal Army were farmers pre-War, and farmers wore boots, it was natural.
Somewhere I have a history of the 12th Wisconsin (loaned to a friend decades ago I fear) that detailed sending letters to the folks back home requesting good sturdy boots, and receiving them as well. I will try to find chapter and verse.
Steve Sullivan

[lukegilly13]

Re: Tucking trousers

I'll agree with the above that you can find boots in Many images, confederate and federal...but more commonly on the feds. Seeing them tucked is less common but the images are still out there. So we know it happened...we don't know how much beyond the shadow of a doubt. There are several theories as to why they did it...my take has always been 1. Fashion statement; 2. Same effects as blousing ones trousers in socks.

Does anyone know how common it was to tuck trousers into the farmer boots as a civilian? Modernly I may do it if I have to cross a small creek or wade heavy mud to get to the barn.....was it common practice then for farmers in the field? If so, it may be the result of habit or they knew and liked the result from experience. There's a thread out about English accoutrements where someone posted an image of federals where you an see several tucked boots...some farmer boots.....

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: Tucking trousers

So just taking the picture Curt posted. You can see the feet of 7 soldiers in the front row pretty clearly. Going from left to right the first 6 (or 86%) appear to be wearing pull on type boots of which 2 (33%) have tucked their pants legs into their boots.

Now a lot of things could affect that decision. In some parts it may have been considered fashionable to wear your pants that way.

Or for practical reasons you may have done that. You may have earned a living on horseback working in heavy brush so you may have worn your pants that way out of habit. Or you might have been a farmer that worked in fields or woods with heavy underbrush. Again you wore your pants that way to protect the pants not because of a fashion statement.

You may be the type of person who's didn't like having their legs chaffed by the tops of the boots so you tucked in your pants.

So there is no easy answer. Did it happen, yes. Was it the majority way of doing things in the infantry. Doesn't appear to be. But, based on this one picture, it was done by a sizable minority.

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: Tucking trousers

Does anyone know how common it was to tuck trousers into the farmer boots as a civilian? Modernly I may do it if I have to cross a small creek or wade heavy mud to get to the barn.....was it common practice then for farmers in the field? If so, it may be the result of habit or they knew and liked the result from experience. There's a thread out about English accoutrements where someone posted an image of federals where you an see several tucked boots...some farmer boots.....

I have plowed, logged and harvested wood with my draft horses and except when the fields are muddy I don't wear high botts or tuck on my pants. In fact almost no one I know does. If the fields aren't muddy I generally us a modern short top work boot which is roughly equivilant to a 'bootee'. The Amish I know and have seen working generally only tuck their pants into tall boots when it is muddy and generally work their horses wearing bootees too.

So not 'scientifically' proof but I see little reason that what modern farmers do working horses would be substantially different than what 1860s farmers did. This would be especially true of the Amish who have mainatined those traditions.

[rogue]

Re: Tucking trousers

I would like to document a statement I made earlier in this thread.
From"Story of the Service of Company E, and of the 12th Wisconsin Regiment of Veteran Volunteer Infantry, in the Great Rebellion." by Hosea W. Rood, 1893, from pages 231 and 232,
"Several of the boys who had been home on furlough, came back bringing in their care boxes of goodies from some of the people there to their friends in the company. Could those home friends have seen the boys open their boxes at Natchez, they would have been amply repaid for having sent them. It was quite the custom of the boys to desire the home folks to send them well made boots to wear in place of the coarse army brogans. The fellow who was fortunate enough to get such a pair of boots was a little apt to be envied by those of us that never got any."
This was written years after the event, but dealt with boxes and boots arriving in December of 1863. I have no knowledge of contemporary farming with horse, nor Amish customs, but felt that this passage was germain.
Steve Sullivan

[minieball]

Re: Tucking trousers

[QUOTE][The light bounce (refraction) is annoying, but yes, I would venture a guess that they are SM 1861's based upon the "serpentine" look of the hammers versus the look of M1863 hammers. The play of light varies gun to gun but I think I am seeing the SM 1861's more "curvy" hammer and the somewhat "egg shape" of the rear of the lock plate/QUOTE]

Looks like they have the screw tension barrel bands and no band springs . They could be SM 1861 (Colt) or
M1863 Springfields

[Dreamer42]

Re: Tucking trousers

Capt. John Henry Otto of the Co. D, 21st Wisconsin mentions many times his preference to wearing boots on campaign. He was in the Western theater, by the way. Could this have been a preference due to the fact the western armies marched around so much more than their eastern brethren?

"We recieved orders for an other fourgaging trip. Our Quartermaster happend to issue Shoes and Clothing and as I did not wish to wear out my boots to(o) fast I drew a pair of new shoes to wear on this trip "
This was post Battle of Perryville.

- "Memoirs of a Dutch Mudsill"


- Jay Reid
Dreamer42
9th Texas

[Dreamer42]

Re: Tucking trousers

I forgot to mention... I love the wide assortment of headgear. I can only see one kepi/cap on the left. Also, notice the lack of brass, even on the cartridge box sling near the center. Very much an "American" army - with their individual tastes on display.


The boots tucked - or not tucked issue - makes me wonder how many images we see of soldiers with pants untucked but they are actually wearing boots rather than brogans, and we just can't tell.

- Jay Reid
Dreamer42
9th Texas