I wonder why...

[Haversack]

Mods, I apologize if this has already been discussed. If it has, please feel free to move/delete this accordingly.

So, I have noticed a lot lately (most specifically in my research of Lee's Army during the Maryland Campaign) that there are "clashing" points of research, so to speak. We have first hand accounts describing Confederate troops as ragged, barefooted, etc. At the same time, images of dead on the battlefield do not show blown out knees in trousers or other such large damage to clothing/uniforms, shoes that are falling apart, etc. What are your thoughts as to why this may be? And what are we to make of it?

[Bmanz1085]

Re: I wonder why...

Well, one certainly cannot discount the "Lost Cause" mythology that tainted some post war writings. I also believe that Lee ordered the sick, the unwilling (some thought invading Maryland was in volition to the cause) and those unshod to remain behind when he advanced into Maryland.The Maryland Campaign came as you know on the heels of nearly 5 months of near continuous combat operations. Perhaps, being that they were in the Richmond area before and after the Seven Days, units were able to "resupply", certainly replacements for combat lost would have been freshly clothed. And you cannot discount the fact that federal trousers, shoes and the such could have been gleaned from the battlefield. I also tend to believe that unlike today, bathing was not a major concern for an army on the march. I can recall from reading how one civilian recalled that "you could smell them before you could see them." And as in all armies, you cannot discount the fact that the men were responsible for their uniform appearance and equipment maintenance. I would hazard a guess that there would be plenty of patching and mending of clothing in camp. OK I know that's a lot of conjecture on my part, but you did ask for our thoughts.

[Jimmayo]

Re: I wonder why...

If you are speaking to the 1862 Maryland campaign there are various causes for poorly clad CS troops. I will only post a couple of what I think are contributing factors. One of the main causes at that time was the inability of the CS quartermaster to supply needed items to the troops. By Sept of 62 the system for issuing depot clothing was in the early stages and the commutation system was way past broken. Commutation uniforms were wearing out and depot issued uniforms were not arriving in required numbers. It could be called a transition period. Add the problem of distribution because of supply wagons with little supply trying to keep up with the army on campaign and you have more reason for clothing shortages.
IMO there was not as much effort put into supplying clothing in the summer as it was in the months prior to winter but that is just a WAG on my part. Surely supplying clothing for the coming winter was on the minds of the quartermaster dept.
The reluctance of some CS troops to give up their comfortable clothing in favor of new clothing may have also been a contributing factor to the ragged appearance. I have read that there were many new CS uniforms for sale in Richmond throughout the war, the owners having sold them for needed cash and retained their worn out uniforms. This practice seemed to be more common as the war wore on.
The Confederate Supply system worked differently during the various years of the war. A lot of reading is required to understand why the system worked or didn’t work. It is impossible to discuss all the reasons in a single post. I don't have access to my reference books now but can give you a couple of good references to start with at a later date.

[mdougher]

Re: I wonder why...

"images of dead on the battlefield do not show blown out knees in trousers or other such large damage to clothing/uniforms, shoes that are falling apart, etc"

I agree. I personally aim to use the pictures over accounts. Im sure the clothing we see in the pictures is worn and soiled, beyond what we can see from the pictures, but it doesnt appear to be falling apart. Im sure this is a case where the truth of the matter in somewhere in between.

[Becky Morgan]

Re: I wonder why...

There was a reason for soldiers' requests for housewives--they used needles and thread. I remember a Union soldier from Ohio--can't recall whose memoir just now--remarking that his unit had robbed every frock coat of its tails and salvaged every bit of cloth from hopeless garments in order to keep their pants patched on the way from Atlanta.

That doesn't mean that the mended garments were comfortable or that the men wouldn't have jumped at the chance to replace them. If John Beauchamp Jones is to be believed, a lot of supplies sat at rail depots because the government seemed unable to coordinate freight and passenger movements. (At one point in late 1864, 800 barrels of soap were at a depot on the Southside, but no one seemed able to get them to Lee's army.) There were a lot of complaints about poor quality, especially machine-made socks, and a lot of worn-out shoes causing problems.

Part of the problem may be that no one these days wears clothing in the way the soldiers had to. Reenactors invest a lot of time and money in kit, and it doesn't get flogged the way ordinary clothing did. It would be interesting to outfit a unit of reenactors in new clothing, then send them on--oh, say, the Antietam campaign--with the same amount fo stops, etc. the original cast had. I don't know how long shoes might last on a summer road, or how fast a pair of pants will wear too thin for use if they're on pretty much day and night. I'm more familiar with women's clothing, but even at that I can't guess what would happen to a dress that got rinsed, but not really washed, after soap ran short, or how long a pair of drawers would last if there was only one pair to hand. Unfortunately, most of us have jobs or other commitments that keep us from trying the experiment in proper form.

[Jim S]

Re: I wonder why...

If you take time to download the high-def versions of Antietam dead on the Library of Congress site, you'll see a lot more wear and tear than when you're looking at grainy versions in books. There's a man lined up for burial with his sleeve in absolute tatters, and other pics that show lesser but still noticeable amounts of wear. The raggedness is sometimes there, we're just used to looking at crappy quality images.

[Bill]

Re: I wonder why...

Interesting discussion. I've been in the Hobby almost twenty-five years and attend between 10 and 12 events per year. In round figures, I spend a month per year in period clothing. Like most of you, I wear different clothing for different impressions, but I've tried to keep track of how long things last. Based on my experience, a haversack lasts about three months. We walk on a lot more pavement, but the heels on my brogans last about a month, while the soles last about two months. I figure they got about two months on the heels and three months on the soles. (That's with no plates) The wool cover on a smooth side canteen is good for about a year, while the cover on a bullseye canteen is shot in about six months. (They wear out on the rings) Packs don't last very long, maybe six months. The various straps and ties wear out and break. I've found that jackets and coats wear out from the inside. The linings rot, while the exterior still looks pretty good. The exteriors just change color. I have a shell jacket that started life a dark blue-gray that's now green, except where the sun doesn't hit. Hats and caps also seem to wear out from the inside. The sweatbands and linings go a lot faster than the outer felt or wool. Again, they just change color. I don't have much feeling for how long trousers last. For some reason, mine seem to last forever, probably because I wear a bigger selection of trousers. I have a pair of jeans cloth trousers that must have six months wear and they're still in good shape.

As they say, other people's mileage may vary.

[Haversack]

Re: I wonder why...

Interesting discussion. I've been in the Hobby almost twenty-five years and attend between 10 and 12 events per year. In round figures, I spend a month per year in period clothing. Like most of you, I wear different clothing for different impressions, but I've tried to keep track of how long things last. Based on my experience, a haversack lasts about three months. We walk on a lot more pavement, but the heels on my brogans last about a month, while the soles last about two months. I figure they got about two months on the heels and three months on the soles. (That's with no plates) The wool cover on a smooth side canteen is good for about a year, while the cover on a bullseye canteen is shot in about six months. (They wear out on the rings) Packs don't last very long, maybe six months. The various straps and ties wear out and break. I've found that jackets and coats wear out from the inside. The linings rot, while the exterior still looks pretty good. The exteriors just change color. I have a shell jacket that started life a dark blue-gray that's now green, except where the sun doesn't hit. Hats and caps also seem to wear out from the inside. The sweatbands and linings go a lot faster than the outer felt or wool. Again, they just change color. I don't have much feeling for how long trousers last. For some reason, mine seem to last forever, probably because I wear a bigger selection of trousers. I have a pair of jeans cloth trousers that must have six months wear and they're still in good shape.

As they say, other people's mileage may vary.

Great post, Bill (and everyone else...I love the info/opinions/thoughts shared so far). Your "experiment", if you will, really seems to shed some light on things and makes using QM records a bit easier as far as discerning the condition of gear at a particular point goes, based on the time elapsed since the last issue.

-Shawn

[Mutt]

Re: I wonder why...

I agree with much of the speculation, thoughts, etc presented thus far. In regards to experimentation I can offer that when i worked as a Historical Educator at Fort Delaware over the course of about a year, I wore the same clothing 5 days a week. We carried out much of what an average Federal artillerist did in his daily routine - drilling on the guns, washing the guns, cleaning rifles, guard duty, hulling wood and coal and I got into some blacksmithing. So if I gathered all that time up, I'd maybe have solid few months. In that time my trousers faded were torn and stained, my 2 shirts were tattered and repaired, tin buttons rusted off (sweat and high humidity of being on an island), shoes wore holes due to the slate all around. And this is in a Fort! I can only imagine what a soldier would look and smell like in the feild, marching miles, no roof over their heads, going into battle, coming out. I'd easily cut the wear time in half for their clothing and gear. For the record, all my clothing was laundered at the Fort, with period methods. I never laundered my coat but did try washing out my trousers.

I was amazed at how bad my kit got after working at the Fort, even with attempts at upkeep. I've replaced most all of my clothing since (it's been a few years now)

Anyhow, just a few barks if they are worth much to the conversation at all. I don't like seeing a thread stray too much from the inital topic.

Best,

[Honved]

Re: I wonder why...

Gents,

I ran across this interesting description of the 39th Alabama in Tennessee in late 1862 (I know it's not Eastern theater but still think it applies to the discussion here):

"Capt. T.Q. Stanford, 39th Ala. Infantry
Tullahoma Tenn. 19th Nov. 1862
… we are not So destetute as I onced feared we were for we can now get plenty of Clothing & Shoes all Complete for a Soldier except hats yesterday we drew good Shoes at 4.50 pr Pair I drew Shoes for all but one man who wore large nos we did not draw much clothing… you would laugh to See Some men changing cloths they wash off & burn their old cloths put on their new ones and feel much better…
… I hope you will get me a good pair of Boots or Shoes I had mine Spoiled by the ½ Sole that was put on in cleyton (Clayton, Ala.) which is raw hide. I drew a Splendid pr of pants made of Blue Cloth for $9.50 which would cost me at Clothing house $35 the Clothing was made at Opelika Singular incident for it to come to their beloved 39th Ala most of the officers took a pair & lef plenty I will Send you & Monroe a pr each I can get express Transportation their was Some good over Shirts but I did not get any of them they were Scerse & the first that got them took all So now on dress parade the 39th is a Spotted or Striped Set or a variety of uniforms out Some in new Suits from fine English Sock up to a fine Cloth Cap down to Slick rags and tied up shoes & hats &c…"

Shoes were in such abundance that he purchased two extra pair to send home. I have not tried to correct the spelling errors but also found it interesting what he points out to be "new Suits from fine English Sock up to a fine Cloth Cap down to Slick rags and tied up shoes & hats &c". In his unit, at this point in time, it seems that you could find both the well supplied and clothed soldier to ones that looked like the "ragged rebel" everyone knows and loves.

I also believe that the supplies of clothing depended on how close the troops were to a major supply point (which I guess is stating the obvious), Tullahoma, Tenn. is just north of Chattanooga which was still in Confedeate hands in Nov. of '62. Reading accounts of AOT soldiers who went to Kentucky earlier in '62 shows many of them with a lack of clothing and shoes after the rigors of the campaign and evidenced by this quote:

"Liuet. S.H. Dent, Felix Robertson’s Artillery
Camp Eight Miles from Knoxville Tenn
Oct 25th 1862
… I went into Ky thinking I would get everything I needed but came out not a single bit better than when I went in. My shirts are wearing out – my boots in the same fix and my hat is utterly gone. Unless I get some clothes soon I do not know what I will do. If I had got into a fight as expected I would have supplied myself abundantly…"

What I'm aiming for with my post (and it's my humble opinion) is that it really depended on what point in a campaign a photograph was taken as to see the wear and tear on the uniforms. I have also read accounts of Confederates drawing clothes as needed and not just because they were available. I'm sure there are others on the forum who have done much more exhaustive research on clothing issues so maybe they'll share their info with us....


Todd Guthrie
Knoxville, Tenn.

[Horace]

Re: I wonder why...

It seems to me to be a question of time and place. When were you last able to draw clothing and what have you been doing since then?

There are accounts of Federals who were pursuing the ANV after Gettysburg who were barefoot and marching in their drawers or pants cut off below the knee, because they hadn't been able to resupply and had just been through very hard campaigning and weather.

[Moose]

Re: I wonder why...

Gents,
Let us just take some data. We’ll use the 4th Texas, companies B and H as our models for 1861-1862.
I won’t go into a mini history of the unit but let us set a “small” stage:
The 4th Texas was in the following campaigns in 1862: Seven Days, 2nd Manassas, and Sharpsburg. They marched from Northern Virginia, to the Virginia Peninsular, back to Northern Virginia and then into Maryland.

Company B returns, 1861-1862

No Records for 1861

Received by Capt. B. F. Carter, Co. B, 4th Texas, 31 March 1862 [Roll 284]:
Pr. Pants--25
Jackets--5
Prs. Shoes--52
Sibley Tent--2
B-- [Bell?] Tent--3
Wall Tents--2
Shelters--2
Mess pans--2
Picks--2
Axes--5

Issued to Capt. B.F. Carter, Co. B, 4th Texas, 1/4 ending December 31, 1862 [Roll 284]:
Blankets--70
Shoes--77
Socks--98
Canteens--7
Sibley Tent--1
Wool Shirts--[blank]
Overcoats--87
Pants--24
Drawers--26

What does Co. B tell us? From the data we may be able to assume that their initial uniforms brought from home were well constructed, as they received only five jackets from the QMD in March of 1862 and nothing in 1861. Pants we can see though, we starting the give way. This also tells us that the Confederate QMD in Richmond had clothing to issue. Now look at the December issue. The surviving documents show only two returns for 1862. One return in March and one return in December, which is a nine month gap. Issued clothing was supposed to have a life of about 6 months, so we’re not too far off target. December shows us needing almost the same number of pants, but also an issuance of blankets and overcoats.

Co. H returns, 1861-1862

Received by Capt. Proctor P. Porter, Co. H, December 31, 1861 [Roll 290]:
Blankets--99
Pr. Shoes--40
Socks--99
Sibley Tent--1
Wool Shirts--99
Overcoats--95
Pants--99
No caps
Pr. Drawers--98
Coats--90

Received 30 June 1862 by Capt. Charles E. Jones, cmd Co. H
Pr. Pants @ 3.50--33
Pr. Pants @ 5.50--22
Pr. Pants @ 4.87--2
Pr. Shoes @ 2.50--6
Shoes @ 3.50--103
Pr. Drawers @ 50 cents--20
Pr. Socks @ 50 cents--24
Coats @ 5.75--2
Coat @ 5.00--1
Axe--1
Helve-1

So what does this tell us about Company H? Well it seems that their uniforms may have been inferior as they were issued 90 coats and 99 pair of pants in December of 1861. It also tells us that the Confederate QMD had clothing to give out in 1861. Now the next return isn’t until June 30th of 1862. That is a seven month gap, and only three coats this time. So it seems that the first set of coats is still holding out, but as we can see, pants are needed. But note the different price in pants. That means there is a difference in a manufacturing detail. What that detail is, i.e. material, professional or amateur tailor we cannot tell.

Now a neat note on the Co. H uniforms; anyone notice the date received? It is June 30th, which was the battle of White Oak Swamp and Glendale in the Seven Days Campaign. Now the 4th Texas was at the battle of White Oak Swamp, but held in reserve. Also, Mr. Charles E. Jones, was not the Captain of the company, or even at White Oak Swamp as he is listed as Sick/Absent on their roster. Maybe he was in Richmond picking up their clothing at the Texas supply depot in Richmond. A few “far away” Southern states had set up independent storage facilities in Richmond to house and receive their goods, Texas was one of these state, and according to the QMD (Co. C) (Comment) [Roll 283]--``Private P.J. Barziza, Co. C, 4th Texas Regt. is hereby ordered to Richmond as the agent of his Regt. in that city to take charge of its spare clothing and other property, and to transact all needful business for it. By Cmd. of J.B. Hood, Brig. Gen. Cmd., H.Q., 4th Texas Regt., April 2nd, 1862. ''
There’s also a few other neat things in their returns, like a company receiving 21 over shirts, and how it differentiates between “coat” and “jacket” and “wool shit” and “over shirt.”

So what do we get from the returns?
1. Companies seemed to be issued when they needed it, about 8 months in time.
2. The Confederate QMD was issuing clothing as early as 1861.
3. The date on the return does not necessarily indicate the date the item made it to the troops.

A few other questions to ponder:
1. Without witnessing what the author of an account saw or them writing specifically on a particular unit, we don’t know what Corps, Division or Brigade they were looking at when they took their notes.
2. Without accurate identification, we don’t know exactly what unit(s) the dead in photos belong too.
3. In the case of Virginia and Maryland Campaigns of 1862, we know they did a lot of marching. We also know that the Federals burned or destroyed as much of their excess clothing, equipment, and supplies during the Seven Days movements from Richmond to Harrison’s Landing, as they could. They did that so it would NOT be used by Confederate troops.
4. If you were lucky enough to be with Jackson in the Manassas and Maryland Campaign, you were able to rob the trains at Manassas and then have the plunder at Harper’s Ferry. For those with Longstreet, they seemed to not have such luck. (Time and Place argument)

So, Gents, once again no correct answer here. Just some data.

[Haversack]

Re: I wonder why...

Great posts! I would like to extend a personal "thank you" to all for the info provided. I will try to post some of my thoughts/observations/etc. when I have more time, but all I have to say for now is keep it coming!

[The Chesterfield Rifleman]

Re: I wonder why...

Hello,
If there are first hand accounts of States Rights Soldiers being ragged and barefoot, then they probably were ragged and barefoot. You can also look at the high-def photos from the Library of Congress online. Also, cartoons and propaganda in Northern newspapers didn't help.

All the Best

[CS Ensign]

Re: I wonder why...

As an adjunct, I'm interested in what Confederate depot uniforms would have been issued, if any troops had received depot issues (and I suspect some had). It was my understanding from Les Jensen's published work that issue of the untrimmed RD II jacket began as early as the spring of 1862, probably being produced in tandem with trimmed RD I versions until the trimmed versions were phased out. For those units that had received government depot issues, would there have been a preponderance of RD I, or RD II? I'm thinking of a unit like the 3rd Arkansas of Walker's Division, which had been on the fringes of the Seven Days and didn't participate in the 2nd Manassas campaign at all; but were instead guarding Richmond and Petersburg.

Unfortunately I don't have concrete info on issues to the 3rd Arkansas or any other ANV unit, as my uniform studies have been in the AoT theater ... is there any info out there?

Greg Walden