Socks over your pants?

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Socks over your pants?

This one, and burnishing the Enfield "bright" always gets 'em going. We like to do what we want to do. This is why I broadened my response a bit to encompass a certain philosophical point of view where this practice was concerned. The thought being...sometimes pants were tucked in the socks. It was done, so why was it done? What circumstances led to the practice? Of what use was it?

In nature, we know a certain characteristic serves only one of two purposes. Either to attract members of the opposite sex, or to assist in survival such as (in the case at bar) warding off pests, etc. It appears this practice falls in the later category. It's not what I think, it's what mother nature thinks...

[jake.koch]

Re: Socks over your pants?

Silas, the Alabama monument was actually dedicated in 1951 - it has somthing I have never seen anywhere else as the soldier depicted in the foreground has a piece of twine tied around his trouser leg itself, with no sock over the trouser leg. The monument in the park I mentioned earlier was the Wisconsin Memorial dedicated in 1911, where the infantryman is carrying a trapdoor Springfield.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Socks over your pants?

Hallo!

Oh no, this can be a Jedi Mind Trick. Of the several hundred times I have seen it, I have this image of the 'bloused' trousers and string burned in my mind but I cannot recall what sculpture it is on.

For Gettysburg... not the 1933 Alabama Monument at Gettysburg. I am thinking the 1917 Virginia Monument's right most soldier tearing cartridge about to load.





Art imitates life. One can kinda/sorta trace and track the prevailing contemporary versions, visions, and interpretations as monument statuary art evolves over time all driven by a mix of history as the early ones had actual veterans around in large numbers evolving into more highly romanticized and artful forms later such as the 1929 North Carolina, the 1971 Louisiana, or 1973 Mississippi monuments at Gettysburg.



Curt

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Socks over your pants?

Hallo!

Even famous artists like Remington and Schreyvogel used contemporary artifacts to add 'authenticity' to their paintings.

Charles Schreyvogel's 1904 painting "Attack at Dawn" depicting Custer's November, 1868 attack on the Cheyenne village on the Washita is highly accurate post 1885ish cavalry kit.

And as shared, here in Ohio there are a number of "standardized" late 19th century cemetery and town square Civil War statues with "Trapdoor" Springfield rifles and M1873 type bayonet scabbards, and post 1880's kepis..

Curt

Curt

[Coatsy]

Re: Socks over your pants?

Great accounts guys! Thank you for posting.

From a practical, in the field situation, Mark Tackitt beat me to the punch: "As for blousing, I do it all the time. No one says a word. I don't look out of place. Of course, I blouse my DRAWERS, not my trousers. Bloused trousers are a sign that the soldier probably isn't wearing drawers as there's not much point in blousing both. "

Yup, my socks are tucked into my drawers at events. This usually does the trick. Basically, if you have period correct drawers, this serves as 'protection' from the insects that love to attach themselves to us., Granted, nothing is 100%, but this is taking what WE know, and applying it in the field, and tweaking it suit our purposes, but keeping it in the historical time frame.

[Indianabugles]

Re: Socks over your pants?

I have a father who is an art historian, stained glass to be exact, but in an unrelated discussion he raised a very interesting point. Where photo's exist, and again I would agree that the lack of serious blousing here speaks volumes, then they suggest no Blousing. Photos, while not infallible are generally a reasonably accurate representation of what was seen by the camera when it was seen by the camera.

Now here was my Dads point. A sketch appeared of a stained glass window that was dissembled and the figures in it were identified as Victorian, and of little real value. In fact they were way earlier and the reason that the error occurred and was only identified when the parts were removed from stored was the artist had reproportioned the wrong proportioned faces, which earlier glass has as he considered the content of the glass and not this "Minor Detail" important.

any way the point is this. While the content of the pictures was correct, one detail, ALL THE FACES, pretty big one of you ask me, had been sketched wrong, the artist had looked once and sketched, done. Therefore had continued to do all the faces in the vein of the first glance. I have seen a few sketch pictures of battles where all the battle figures in background are low detail and the high detail, front of frame orderlies are all bloused. ALL OF THEM.

If photographs are subject to scrutiny then pictures and sketches should be subject to an exponentially higher factor of scrutiny, if fact open to the accusation of personal interpretation at time of manufacture. Therefore I have no trust in them at all unless documented, clarified and seconded by other forms of evidence, especially when it is not the images primary focus.

[LeatherHead]

Re: Socks over your pants?

All....One of the most gruesome of the War photos is the well-known burial detail of the Cold Harbor dead. Hanging over the stretcher is a decaying trouser leg bloused into a sock protruding from a bootee, all held in place by the leg and foot bones......grim stuff, indeed.

Dean Nelson
1st MD Infantry, CSA, N-SSA

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Socks over your pants?

Hallo!

I am suspecting that it is his drawers that were tucked?
The shoe is interesting as well...



Curt

[Mark Lewis]

Re: Socks over your pants?

Edwin Forbes drew many pictures of soldiers with their trousers bloused.

[Mark Lewis]

Re: Socks over your pants?

I believe the practice was common but I don't do it because it is thought to be a farbism. That is the only reason. I've seen several period pictures of "bloused trousers" but I can't lay my hands on them right this second.



At least two soldiers in these pics have their trousers tucked in.

http://adolphusconfederateuniforms.com/the-confederate-soldier-of-fort-mahone.html

[delawaric]

Re: Socks over your pants?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1.Sketch,A.Waud,1863, loc.gov
2.Sketch,Forbes,1864, loc.gov
3.http://historical.ha.com/c/item.zx?s...No=22478#Photo
4. http://historical.ha.com/c/item.zx?s...15&lotNo=57675
5.http://www.flickr.com/photos/8026096@N04/8085984596
6. ? FaceBook

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: Socks over your pants?

My personal take on the issue of blousing socks comes from the fact US issue socks were said to have zero elasticity to them, blousing issue socks may have been a way to get them to stay up. I blouse my socks into my drawers solving the tick and bagging socks problems at one fail swoop.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Socks over your pants?

So how does the blousing of your drawers into the socks solve the problem of the ticks climbing straight up between the drawers and trousers then settling in around the waist band? This is the rationale for stuffing the trousers (and drawers) into the socks. I still picked 'em off coming up the outside of the trousers last summer.

I hope we don't have another tick infested summer like that again this year.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: Socks over your pants?

I tuck my shirt into my drawers. That solves the ticks around the waist, and helps with the giant barn door fly that issue drawers have.

[old bear]

Re: Socks over your pants?

To blouse or not to blouse, that may not be the question.
It lends to easily to the answer of “well they did it, so I can too.”

I have been re-enacting since the 80’s and this question just refuses to go away.
Let’s change the question (or at least look at it from a different angle).

There is evidence (rare) that they did blouse occasionally (everybody seems to agree to this point).
If it was only occasionally, then on what occasions did they do it and why? (Most of these have already been covered here)

The question then becomes and maybe should be; when might it be acceptable to blouse?

While we probably cannot answer it definitively either, we may be able to come closer.

Without a complete rehash, evidence would seem to indicate that there were numerous occasions where it would NOT be acceptable, such as formal functions, garrison, parade, etc. One should therefore refrain from blousing on those occasions.
By process of elimination we are left with fewer acceptable occasions.

Without beating a dead horse, yes there are terrain, pest and weather issues while on active campaign in the field that might occasionally push one to blouse or roll up their trousers as a matter of necessity (and some already covered evidence).

So again, if we ask; when might it be acceptable to blouse?
The simple answer is; occasionally or rarely
Or if you prefer a bit of wordiness; The evidence seems to point to only those rare occasions in the field as necessity would dictate.

Mike Jones