1862 Regulars

[coffee boiler]

Re: 1862 Regulars

Or it could be simply, DB trousers were issued because they were in the supply chain, use until stock pile is used up. Same thing happens with every other change in US uniforms.

Agreed, this practice is well document with ordnance and to do otherwise would be inconsistent with the frugal nature of the Army at the time.

[thecause1861]

Re: 1862 Regulars

To throw a curve ball around, there are photos of enlisted men wearing dark blue trousers at Appomattox in April '65. I don't suppose however, that a fellow showing up to such an event would be greeted very graciously by his comrades.

Kurt Berntsen.

[Old Overholt]

Re: 1862 Regulars

I got interested in the presence of dark blue trousers in anticipation of the "1861" events last year and conducted a little bit of research on the subject. The following information is derived from the various U.S. Army Regulations and General Orders as they related to uniforms, as well as primary source materials collected in John Langellier’s Army Blue: The Uniform of Uncle Sam’s Regulars 1848-1873, and the research into the 5th Iowa Infantry shared by Mr. John F. Horrighs of Ocala, Florida. I am also aware of what appears to be a soldier on guard duty wearing dark trousers around the time of 2nd Manassas and three soldiers sitting on an embankment overlooking a bivouac during the Penninsula campaign who appear to be wearing dark trousers; the photos are well known.

The prescribed color of enlisted infantrymen’s trousers was sky blue since before the Mexican War. This was reflected in the 1847 Army Regulations, which called for trousers of “white and blue mixture cloth, producing the effect of a sky-blue” with a white stripe down the outer seam to be worn from October 1st through April 30th. White linen or cotton trousers were acceptable from May 1st to September 30th, without a seam stripe.

In 1851, new regulations dispensed with the white trousers allowed previously, and sky-blue trousers were prescribed for all regimental officers and enlisted men year-round. These were described as to be made “of cloth throughout the year; made loose, and to spread well over the boot; of white and light blue mixed, commonly called sky blue mixture.” On March 26, 1855, General Orders No. 4 was issued, modifying the infantry’s trousers from a plain front to a plaited front, to match a dress coat with plaits in the skirts in the style of the French chasseurs-a-pied. These plaited trousers remained sky-blue in color.

On March 3, 1858, the uniform regulations were again changed by General Orders No. 3, which adopted the dress coat without plaits familiar to Civil-War era soldiers, as well as reverting back to plain-front trousers. The difference is that the trousers issued from this period were to be dark blue for enlisted men and officers in all branches of service.

Dark blue trousers were short-lived for light (field) artillerymen, who were directed to wear sky-blue trousers again by General Orders No. 20 on August 6, 1860. However, all ranks in all other branches of service retained dark blue trousers (including specifically in General Orders No. 6 on March 13, 1861) until the issuance of General Orders No. 108 on December 16, 1861. This change in uniform directed regimental officers and enlisted men to wear sky-blue trousers, while staff and general officers continued with dark blue as the prescribed color. The conventional wisdom for the reversion back to sky-blue is that the imported indigo dye necessary to continue war-time production of dark blue trousers in addition to coats and jackets was simply too costly.

It would be convenient to end the analysis at this point and simply state that U.S. enlisted infantrymen were all wearing dark blue trousers beginning on March 3, 1858 and they all switched to sky-blue on December 16, 1861. Common sense and a knowledge of quartermaster practices of the time would indicate that this would not be a correct assumption, however. First, dark blue trousers would have had to be produced and shipped to America’s far-flung and geographically isolated military depots and garrisons for the troops to be issued them. Second, quartermasters are typically thought to have exhausted older supplies of uniforms before issuing anything new that arrived. Finally, soldiers are known to have continued to wear outdated uniforms on fatigue duty and campaign in order to avoid wearing out newer items of clothing that were issued to them on a very limited basis. This latter practice was also likely subject to company- and perhaps regimental-level approval which would have varied. Therefore, it is hard to rely on photographic evidence, such as soldiers on campaign during the Utah Expedition of 1857-1858 and its aftermath, to tell us what the soldiers were issued when. This point is driven home by a newspaper description of a detachment of the 6th Infantry dispatched against the Paiutes in Nevada in 1860, who were described in the field as wearing sack coats, “…light blue pants, black Kossuth hats, with left brim turned up…” Interestingly, the detachment of Company H, 3rd Artillery who accompanied the infantry were described as wearing “dark mixed pants…” Both units, if the description was correct, appear to be wearing older versions of the trousers than what current regulations prescribed for them. It is also interesting to note that the artillery and infantry troops described were stationed in San Francisco and Benicia Barracks, respectively, and would have presumably had supplies of relatively up-to-date uniforms. After all, Benicia Barracks had more M1855 Springfield muskets on hand on January 1, 1861 than did any other military installation save Springfield Armory!

However, it is clear that not all dark blue trousers in the government’s stores were issued to troops before sky-blue trousers were reintroduced in December 1861. In October 1864, over 22,000 pairs of dark blue trousers were still on hand at the Philadelphia Depot alone. In fact, in September of that year correspondence was circulated questioning whether these “French Blue” trousers were suitable for sale to officers as a way for the Quartermaster Department to get rid of them.

Given these facts and assumptions, what then of the possibility that either Regulars or Volunteers were issued sky-blue trousers prior to the beginning of 1862? Were old stock of pre-1858 trousers issued out in the early months of the war as the Federal and State governments struggled to raise and outfit regiments? I do not have evidence one way or the other if or where there were such stocks on hand from the relatively small pre-war army and how many such trousers were available in Northern states. Plus many of these manufactured from 1855 to early 1858 would have been plait-fronts! The fact that some such sky-blue trousers were issued prior to the December 1861 change in uniform regulations is borne out by two period descriptions from soldiers in the 5th Iowa Infantry written in August and September 1861. The first is a diary entry dated Saturday, August 24, 1861 while the 5th Iowa was stationed at Jefferson City, Missouri. It is from the diary of George M.T. Ditto of Co. I and reads: “Today we drew knapsacks, haversacks, canteens and uniforms consisting of light blue pants, and dark blue blouses, and the fatigue cap of the U.S.A. Most of the old clothing was given to the "Home Guards.” Mr. Ditto’s 836 page manuscript currently resides in the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library at Springfield, Illinois - SC 2192. The second is a letter published in the Tipton, Iowa Advertiser newspaper in the September 12, 1861 edition with the letter dated "Camp near Jefferson City, Sept. 1,1861” and was written by a correspondent calling himself "Coon Creek". He was in reality Sergeant William G. McElrea of Co. A 5th Iowa. In his letter he writes: “The boys have received part of their new uniforms consisting of pants, one shirt, two pair of woolen socks, one pair of shoes, and a cap. The pants are of a fine light blue satinet, not lined but well made, and dressy enough to go courting in.” Mr. Horrighs believes this edition of the Advertiser is preserved on microfilm at the Iowa Historical Society in Iowa City, Iowa.

Like everything else I seem to dig into, there is no black-and-white answer. Here out West, I tend to think that a good pair of dark blues is perfectly appropriate (absent specific unit evidence to the contrary) through Pea Ridge and Shiloh, and maybe beyond!

[rake]

Re: 1862 Regulars

One of the reasons why we have the uniform changes in 1857-58 is the Utah Expedition is using the last of the Mexican War procurement of uniform items, thus, the start of the issue of the sack coat, and the new shade of trousers.

The regulations being issued when they were, is the result of the older styles of the 1840s fatigue dress being exhausted.

[Bill]

Re: 1862 Regulars

For what it's worth, in the famous photo of Company C, 110th. Pennsylvania, taken at Falmouth, Virginia, in April 1863, the forth man from the right appears to be wearing dark blue trousers. His trousers are difficult to see. You have to look at the soldier's feet to see where his trousers drape over his brogans.
Everybody else, including the Company Commander appear to be wearing the sky blue trousers.

[Plug Hat]

Re: 1862 Regulars

Data does support the stockpiles in the West. In 1861, one hundred eighty-three of the 198 U.S. Army companies were scattered at outposts west of the Mississippi River. Thirty-seven companies of infantry, artillery, and cavalry were located in the Department of Texas alone. Many were captured when General David E. Twiggs surrendered the entire department to Texas State (Confederate) Forces. The loss of U.S. Military stores in Texas alone amounted to a value of a million and a half dollars for the Union!

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: 1862 Regulars

Mark

I would be interested to see what you have on US troops in California and Oregon (Vancouver).