Sounds Like Reenactors

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Last night in reading the book I'm currently working through I found some stuff that sounds very similar to modern reenactor arguments in the "farb" vs. "hardcore" debate:

Source: We Came to Fight: The History of the 5th New York Veteran Volunteer Infantry, Duryee's Zouaves (1863-1865), by Patrick Schroeder, 1998, p. 211:

-------------------------------------------------

"On November 10 [1864] the newly appointed general (Frederic Winthrop, commander of the 5th NYSVV's brigade] instructed officers the brigade to always direct their companies with their swords--not their hands--when drilling. Winthrop also admonished officers to wear their swords outside their jackets, rather than underneath. Another part of the order was directed particularly to the 15th New York Heavy Artillery. The decree forebade men to tuck their pants inside their socks or to wear boots, which many soldiers in the 15th frequently did."

Original Source: 5th NYSVV Regimental Books.

-------------------------------------------------------

The fact that this particular brigadier had to issue a special order to halt these practices seems to indicate that enough men and officers were doing these things - while in a static camp (building winter quarters) - for the general to take notice and stop it.

[markj]

Re: Sounds Like Reenactors

Last night in reading the book I'm currently working through I found some stuff that sounds very similar to modern reenactor arguments in the "farb" vs. "hardcore" debate:

Source: We Came to Fight: The History of the 5th New York Veteran Volunteer Infantry, Duryee's Zouaves (1863-1865), by Patrick Schroeder, 1998, p. 211:

-------------------------------------------------

"On November 10 [1864] the newly appointed general (Frederic Winthrop, commander of the 5th NYSVV's brigade] instructed officers the brigade to always direct their companies with their swords--not their hands--when drilling. Winthrop also admonished officers to wear their swords outside their jackets, rather than underneath. Another part of the order was directed particularly to the 15th New York Heavy Artillery. The decree forebade men to tuck their pants inside their socks or to wear boots, which many soldiers in the 15th frequently did."

Original Source: 5th NYSVV Regimental Books.

-------------------------------------------------------

The fact that this particular brigadier had to issue a special order to halt these practices seems to indicate that enough men and officers were doing these things - while in a static camp (building winter quarters) - for the general to take notice and stop it.

Hi Kevin,

Nice quote. Read enough regimental order books at the National Archives and you'll find out that modern so-called "farbism" is often uncomfortably close to actual wartime soldier habits. Colonel Edward A. King, of the 68th Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was absolutely driven to distraction by the "unsoldierly habits" of his officers and enlisted men. Among his many general orders were admonishments against company officers "wearing their coats open and flying loose" as well as their disconcerting habit of "eating apples and smoking cigars" while drilling their troops. King also concurrently issued an order forbidding troops from marking or painting their tents, accoutrements, canteens, etc. unless done "according to the regulations." We can only wonder what types of "markings" were put on these items (perhaps some were were *ahem* "racy"?).

For his part, the commander of the 74th Indiana issued an order prohibiting his men from "Wrestling or Scuffling" while in camp. Seems they were a very "lively" bunch! Various orders in the books of "Brown's Brigade" (AoT) for late Winter 1862 through early Spring 1863 indicate the level of drill (even among ostensibly "veteran" units) was pretty bad. Here's just a "taste"

Hd Qrts Woods Brigade
Jany 30th" 1863

Genl Order
No 29

Commanding officers of Regiments will have their commands drilled daily in the manuel [sic] of arms in addition to the regular Drill Their attention is called to the negligence on the part of Company officers in this important part of the drill

By Command of
Brig Genl Wood
O. S. Palmer
A A Genl

Other orders indicate that many officers were very "lacking" when it came to even basic knowledge of how many men were in their companies, numbers of rifles and accoutrements on-hand, etc. It's pretty clear that Generals W. J. Hardee, J. C. Brown, et. al. not only had their hands full but also were tearing their hair out in frustration trying to whip their troops into some sort of shape.

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[JimConley]

Re: Sounds Like Reenactors

Good Topic!
I can recall times when the boys have become too casual when they are meant to be presentable. The quote does sound like re-enactors because we've all heard the same things about something the commanders or organizaers wish to stop. For some reason, the one thing that sticks out having read this post is trouser blousing. I have never done this myself, but it seems to be a common practice among mainstream re-enactors. I've noticed that many guidelines for authentic events now boldly state that trouser blousing is not allowed. Apparently the documentation on blousing is rather limited so this is one thing being dealt with. Which brings up one of the many challenges for us authentics. We can only base our impressions from original artifacts, photos, and documentation. But who's to say that something such as trouser blousing was not a common act on marches through rough and filthy terrain? But, I suppose if it were such that it would have been mentioned more in memoirs and literature of that nature. Good post friend!

[Noble Pelican]

Re: Sounds Like Reenactors

Sounds like those Illinois and New York commanders were some tough fellows. Of course, our southern taskmasters were equally strict.
Notice how you let your guys go to the sinks and it takes forever for them to return? The sutlers seem to be the main guilty party for diverting their attention.
In mid 1862, Colonel Benjamin Lewis Hodge of the 19th Louisiana Infantry came up with a solution. He issued an order that "any man, while on drill, that should take too long for a call of nature, would be hung by the thumbs for 15 minutes or until he faints." The bad part was that the men had the Beauregard quickstep at the time so necessity made them take longer than usual.
Who is up for trying this one?

Richard H. Holloway
Captain, Vance Guards
19th LA. Vols.

[Yellowhammer]

Re: Sounds Like Reenactors

Good post Kevin.

Another example of how early simple attempts at authenticity have become dogma and many of these need to be reexamined.

Blousing trousers is a great example. When I first got into the hobby, blousing trousers was frowned about by authentics as "over represented" and, frankly, because there were few sources for correct socks. Over the years, this morphed into rolled trousers being the only thing that was considered authentic. Well, clearly soldiers on both sides tucked their trousers into their socks from time to time. Further, some units forbade this practice so both need to be taken into account.

Another similar issue is Confederates carrying knapsacks. Years ago, very few Confederate reenactors carried knapsacks so the authentic fellows compensated for this by wearing packs. Over the years, wearing a knapsack became a "hardcore" thing to do (whether it was authentic or not was probably secondary) and you saw whole CS companies completed outfitted with knapsacks regardless of the scenario.

It's funny, I still see regs and guidelines for authentic events quoting the mantra from years ago. "No hat brass. No bloused trousers. Etc..." I'm glad to see many authentic units reexamining some of these "farbisms."

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: Sounds Like Reenactors

This all just points up the need for continuing research and continuing improvement in our portrayals; some of the "worst farbs" are those who deem themselves to be "campaigners" and sit on the laurels from their first season or two.

There's sometimes a difference between "general documentation" of common trends in the Civil War versus what a given unit did during a specific time period of campaign. Accurately representing the latter is the tricky part because there's never enough documentation to satisfy us. :-)

Regarding hat brass, I think most folks in the "authentic" wing of reenacting understand that it WAS somewhat common for soldiers to wear company letters and regimental numbers, at least in some units. I have never seen a photo of a CW soldier wearing a bugle (on a forage cap) or all the other common reenactor hat-decorations so, as much as one wants to see it all done as correctly as possible, if we have to err on this issue it's probably better to have no hat brass than to have too much.

I think many of us have known for years that soldiers DID blouse their trousers into their socks. The problem in reenacting is when one sees an entire company of reenactors doing it to "look cool" (or some other purpose) or, worse, seeing men doing for dress parade or guard duty. I've seen documentation of soldiers doing all kinds of "wrong" stuff for parade and guard, but it wasn't the norm, and that's probably why it's prohibited in many groups and at many events. If a fellow showed up to dress parade with bloused socks in a company I commanded I'd ask him to unblouse them before we marched to parade; if someone had bloused socks at parade in a battalion I was commanding, I'd talk to his company commander about if afterward to see that it didn't happen again the next day. But that's just me.

Something that's MISSING in a lot of reenactor portrayals is the attitude of the unit's commanding officer. We all know from our CW reading that there were captains and colonels and generals who were slackers themselves and their units were a bit slovenly for it. And there were others who were hard cases like John Gibbon (second commander of the famed Iron Brigade and the man who did most of their training) who stood for no B.S. whatsoever. And there were commanders who were "reasonable" at times and hard cases at other times. The commander set the tone for his unit and his personality, and that of HIS commanding officer, dictated in large part what his unit was like in terms of its "military-ness". In my case, I'm an engineer for a living and I guess I must like to "stick to the rules", so personally I place more of an emphasis on complying with period army regs (withing reason). If I were an officer in the CW I suspect that's how I would have run my unit. Again, that's just me.

Someday, when we can do it "right" per period regulations and manuals, we can then work to ease off this a bit and get even closer to how real soldiers did it.

The hobby still has a heck of a long ways to go in terms of research and improvement of our portrayals.

[RyanBWeddle]

Re: Sounds Like Reenactors

That is a great quote indeed.

John - I agree with you, but we need to get away from the term "blousing", that is from the 20th C. military lexicon. I have yet to see a reference to 'blousing', tucking/tucked (as seen here) is the most common...

Kevin - with hat brass, it REALLY depends on the unit you portray event to event. If questionable, keep it simple or none at all.

[texandrummer61]

Re: Sounds Like Reenactors

Personally, I think that most of the time tucking of the pants into the socks should be done only as a necessity. In many pictures I have seen, the soldier's pants are cuffed, and this seems to be almost a fashion statement. But then again, maybe some men thought tucking was a fashion statement-
Like Kevin said, we have a long way to go.

[The German Farmer]

Re: Sounds Like Reenactors

In my case, I'm an engineer for a living and I guess I must like to "stick to the rules", so personally I place more of an emphasis on complying with period army regs (withing reason). If I were an officer in the CW I suspect that's how I would have run my unit. Again, that's just me.

Someday, when we can do it "right" per period regulations and manuals, we can then work to ease off this a bit and get even closer to how real soldiers did it.

The hobby still has a heck of a long ways to go in terms of research and improvement of our portrayals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree with this post by Kevin. He makes some awesome points, but one thing I think is over-represented in reenacting today as a whole is just a plain old thing I like to call "the military mindset". I think that we have, either intentionally or not, learned of the slacking way in which military discipline in the war was enforced that we have now set a revisionist illustration that shows in was nearly noexistent most of the time. We learn of uniform variations, men shirking duties, regulations ignored, and drills modified. I think all too often that we begin to over-show the informality of men in that time.

As is seen throughout history, men of that era took as much, if not sometimes more, pride in a military bearing than we do today. For example, look at the pre-war tendency of private militias. Unlike our modern, Federally run National Guard, these units were totally volontary, and it was on their own behalf that the men drilled, marched, and indeed competed amongst other units. The extent to which these men regarded a martial appearance suggests that they did embrace more discipline than that pounded into them by officers.

It was this military mindset that we seem to half forgotten in our portrayals and research. The soldier was a soldier a lot more of the time than the "hired guns" we sometimes wind up thinking of.

Your H'ble and O'bed. Servt.,
Christopher C. Visser
German Farmers Mess
9th Texas Inf, Co. G

[Possum Skinner]

Re: Sounds Like Reenactors

Christopher,

I would agree with you, up to a point. That point begins and ends essentially, like everything else, on who or what you are portraying. I would agree that there is entirely too much non-military attitude in the ranks of the mainstream. I see little or no military bearing whatsoever, with a few exceptions. The same attitude toward military bearing is taken right along with the same attitude towards impression and drill.

The point I would not argue, but politely bring up for discussion, is your point about the men being volunteer soldiers. I am sure that many, particularly in the Confederate Armies, did take a sort of pride in being a soldier and acted as such. 1st person accounts, particularly those from the aristocratic side of society seem to bear this out. The 1st person accounts also bear out that there were a lot of soldiers who quickly got tired of being soldiers, hated martinette commanders, and even occasionally went so far as outright mutiny. They were citizen soldiers, and the threat of violence and punishment for wrong-doing and insubordination was often despised and very much secretly, occasionally openly, rebelled against.

Pre-war militia may have been very military in bearing, but regiments raised from the corn and cottonfields, livery stables, factories, and every other section of civilian life certainly weren't. This was one of Braxton Bragg's greatest failures. He was unable to comprehend that his men were NOT regular soldiers like he was wont to command. The more they bucked, the harder he became, and desertion, mutiny, and a general hatred of Army life followed.

Because most of my research is based in Alabama, I will use Alabama as a sampling. Pre-war militia stood at about 8,000 for the AVC. Alabama is thought to have put between 65,000 and 80,000 men into the Confederate Armies. That is a very small sampling of around 10% of pre-war militia in the field. 90% were citizens and not even volunteer soldiers before the conflict.

I agree that today's reenactor should have more of a military bearing than what is usually represented. Especially in the mainstream ranks. I will agree that even the citizen soldier was drilled incessantly and knew how to be a good soldier, but I sincerely doubt that he was much of a stickler for some of the more military details that are considered consistent with the regular army. If he had a regular army officer in charge, he probably did it, but hated it. I am sure he tried to "put on the dog" for formal ceremonies and parades, because he wanted to look good for the "home folks"; however, in the field and on campaign and bivouac, he was just a fellow trying to get by.

Not an argument, just an observation, and I am more than happy to accept constructive criticism.

[The German Farmer]

Re: Sounds Like Reenactors

I do agree with your counterpoint. I was should have been more specific and included that I wasnt trying to speak for all soldiers in all situations in all states at all times. Thank you for continuing where I left the subject wanting.

[marine05]

Re: Sounds Like Reenactors

Man, I have read this thread with a smile on my face. Today's active forces face the same thing every day, the "farbisms" described are sort of like the "Marines don't" list we have, such as ...eat while walking;...have an outer jacket unbottoned;...smoke while walking;...keep their hands in their pockets (we call that wearing army mittens). In many cases the guardsmen and reservists of today take a little "soldiering" practice to remember what they we taught in recruit training. In other cases the "parade ground" gives ground to a unit's fighting ability. Even today as Marines come back from the combat regions, they have to be reminded that they are no longer in a combat zone so the uniform regulations apply. An even in the combat zones Marines have to be reminded that a certain laxness is allowed, but there is a line that should not be crossed.

Bottom line in my book, very little has changed in 140+ years, for as I read regimental histories and personal accounts I think that I just saw that yesterday or I just said that the other day.

I realize that mentioning modern equivalents may not be proper, but it still amazes me that as we study and try to become more authentic, that we seem surprised at many things that really happened.

As a side note on uniforms, currently the Marine Corps is wearing 4 different camoflage field uniforms, 2-3 different field packs, 3 different styles of boots. Soon we will have 2 camoflage field uniforms, one for desert/arid geography and one for wooded, and only two boots, one for cold weather, the other for hot, the same with the packs, we will soon have one. The point here is that I read the arguments stating specifically what someone would be wearing at a particular point in the war, let me tell you as one that now purchases items, it is impossible to field everything at once to everybody, so for anyone to say that in for example in May 1863 that every union soldier was wearing a particular items such as a smooth side canteen has no concept on how items are fielded and distributed.

I do appreciate all the posts I read here as I feel that I learn something from all who post here.

Thanks to all for increasing my knowledge and understanding.

Semper Fi.

DJM

[markj]

Re: Sounds Like Reenactors

Greetings,

While going through some old e-mails I found some stuff I jotted down while going through the regimental order books of the 34th Illinois (NARA RG 94 E112-115). These put a whole new spin on the conduct of some of our ancestors.....

Enjoy,

Mark Jaeger



General Orders Head Quarters Second Division
No 37 Camp Sill [Tenn.] January 18th 1863


The habit of men breaking off and carrying away portions of the Telegraph wire must be discontinued. The wire though lying on the ground must not be disturbed as it materially interferes with the reconstruction of the Telegraph lines. Commanders will see to it that this order is enforced.

By order of Brig Genl [R. W.] Johnson
J. R. Bartlett
Capt & AAAG

official
Carl Schmitt
[32nd Indiana Vols]
AAG [1st Brigade]

[General] Order Camp Wood [Ky] Jan 14th 1862
No 2

The Lieut Col [A. Bosworth] Commanding has learned with extreme mortification that Regiment[al] order No 21 of Date Sept [1861] has been frequently disregarded in this Regiment especially in its third and sixth articles in relation to boystrous [sic] conduct card playing and the use of profane language and therefore directs the adjutant to read said order No 21 on dress Parade this day and to add that Company Comdrs will be held strictly responsible for its perfect obidence [sic] within their commands and that any enlisted men found guilty of disobedience of it will be severely punished

[By order of Lieut Col Bosworth]


Court Martial Transcript - 34th Illinois

Charges & Specifications

Preferred against Private Chas. C. Lyon of Co K 34th Regt Ills Vols

Charge 1st

Violation of the Sixth Article of War

Specification 1st: In this that the Private Charles C Lyon of Company K 34th Ills Vols did on the morning of March 13th 1863 refuse to turn out to Roll Call saying that he was sick & when called upon by his superior officer to go to the Surgeon to be examined he did refuse to go by saying he (the Surgeon) might kiss his "Royal American ass" and that he would excuse himself for the Surgeon was a "damned old quack" or words to that effect

Specification 2nd: In this that the Private Charles C Lyon of Company K 34th Ills Vols when ordered by his comdg officer to go on duty did refuse to obey said order and asked his comdg officer [why] he was not excused & when being told by his comdg officer that the Surgeon had told him so did make use of the following language saying that he (the comdg officer) might tell the Surgeon to kiss his ass.

Specification 3rd: In this that he Private Charles C Lyon of Company K 34th Ills Vols when ordered by his Comdg officer to go out on the works under Guard in charge of a non commissioned officer did use the following language against his Comdg officer that he was a Damned Tory and a son of a Bitch while in charge of the Guard

All this at Camp near Murfreesboro Tenn on or about March 13th 1863.

On consideration of the evidence deduced the court finds
the accused guilty as follows

of the 1st Specification Guilty
of the 2d D[itt]o D[itt]o
of the 3d D[itt]o D[itt]o
of the Charge D[itt]o

[and the court] does therefore sentence him the said Charles C Lyon of Company K 34th Ills Vols to forfeit one months pay proper & to be kept daily in Fatigue Duty for the Period of Thirty Days

By order of A. P. Dysart
Maj Comdg 34th Ills Vols

L. L. Johnson
1st Lieut & Actg Adjt

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES from the Company K, 34th Illinois Descriptive Book:

Private Charles C. Lyon, age 36, height 5' 6", complexion light, eyes dark, hair dark, born Lebanon OH, occupation farmer, enlisted September 6, 1861 at Kansas IL by O. O. Herrick for 3 years

Morning Report Book (Remarks for 3 Sep 63)

Chas. C. Lyon was wounded June 25th [1863] Ret[urne]d to co[mpany] Not fit for duty

Remarks for 11 May 1864:

Private Charles C. Lyon "Deserted whilst Engageing the Enemy" [sic]
(apparently Lyon, at long last, had finally had enough....)

[marine05]

Re: Sounds Like Reenactors

Greetings,

While going through some old e-mails I found some stuff I jotted down while going through the regimental order books of the 34th Illinois (NARA RG 94 E112-115). These put a whole new spin on the conduct of some of our ancestors.....

Enjoy,

Mark Jaeger



General Orders Head Quarters Second Division
No 37 Camp Sill [Tenn.] January 18th 1863


The habit of men breaking off and carrying away portions of the Telegraph wire must be discontinued. The wire though lying on the ground must not be disturbed as it materially interferes with the reconstruction of the Telegraph lines. Commanders will see to it that this order is enforced.

By order of Brig Genl [R. W.] Johnson
J. R. Bartlett
Capt & AAAG

official
Carl Schmitt
[32nd Indiana Vols]
AAG [1st Brigade]

[General] Order Camp Wood [Ky] Jan 14th 1862
No 2

The Lieut Col [A. Bosworth] Commanding has learned with extreme mortification that Regiment[al] order No 21 of Date Sept [1861] has been frequently disregarded in this Regiment especially in its third and sixth articles in relation to boystrous [sic] conduct card playing and the use of profane language and therefore directs the adjutant to read said order No 21 on dress Parade this day and to add that Company Comdrs will be held strictly responsible for its perfect obidence [sic] within their commands and that any enlisted men found guilty of disobedience of it will be severely punished

[By order of Lieut Col Bosworth]


Court Martial Transcript - 34th Illinois

Charges & Specifications

Preferred against Private Chas. C. Lyon of Co K 34th Regt Ills Vols

Charge 1st

Violation of the Sixth Article of War

Specification 1st: In this that the Private Charles C Lyon of Company K 34th Ills Vols did on the morning of March 13th 1863 refuse to turn out to Roll Call saying that he was sick & when called upon by his superior officer to go to the Surgeon to be examined he did refuse to go by saying he (the Surgeon) might kiss his "Royal American ass" and that he would excuse himself for the Surgeon was a "damned old quack" or words to that effect

Specification 2nd: In this that the Private Charles C Lyon of Company K 34th Ills Vols when ordered by his comdg officer to go on duty did refuse to obey said order and asked his comdg officer [why] he was not excused & when being told by his comdg officer that the Surgeon had told him so did make use of the following language saying that he (the comdg officer) might tell the Surgeon to kiss his ass.

Specification 3rd: In this that he Private Charles C Lyon of Company K 34th Ills Vols when ordered by his Comdg officer to go out on the works under Guard in charge of a non commissioned officer did use the following language against his Comdg officer that he was a Damned Tory and a son of a Bitch while in charge of the Guard

All this at Camp near Murfreesboro Tenn on or about March 13th 1863.

On consideration of the evidence deduced the court finds
the accused guilty as follows

of the 1st Specification Guilty
of the 2d D[itt]o D[itt]o
of the 3d D[itt]o D[itt]o
of the Charge D[itt]o

[and the court] does therefore sentence him the said Charles C Lyon of Company K 34th Ills Vols to forfeit one months pay proper & to be kept daily in Fatigue Duty for the Period of Thirty Days

By order of A. P. Dysart
Maj Comdg 34th Ills Vols

L. L. Johnson
1st Lieut & Actg Adjt

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES from the Company K, 34th Illinois Descriptive Book:

Private Charles C. Lyon, age 36, height 5' 6", complexion light, eyes dark, hair dark, born Lebanon OH, occupation farmer, enlisted September 6, 1861 at Kansas IL by O. O. Herrick for 3 years

Morning Report Book (Remarks for 3 Sep 63)

Chas. C. Lyon was wounded June 25th [1863] Ret[urne]d to co[mpany] Not fit for duty

Remarks for 11 May 1864:

Private Charles C. Lyon "Deserted whilst Engageing the Enemy" [sic]
(apparently Lyon, at long last, had finally had enough....)

I rest my case, about 95% of this post looks like the UCMJ reports I see frequently and even today communicators have a tough time with troops cutting comm wire. So not only do we have to look with chagrin at our ancestors, but also our sons and daughters.

As we say, 228 years of tradition unchanged by progress.

**However, whether privates, NCOs or officers in either the Confederate or Union armies, all have a duty to uphold and enforce all orders and regulations for without them you have a mob and not an army.** That as I see it is the point of being "authentic" if you want to reenact as a soldier, be a soldier.

S/F

DJM

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: Sounds Like Reenactors

Mark,

Those are some good excerpts! Thanks for posting them.

The book I quoted in the original post on this thread, Schroeder's late-1990s regimental of the 5th NY Veteran, is very oriented on regimental records and the doings of individual soldiers. Schroeder chronicles a load of infractions and goes to efforts to point out and document how, especially in the 5th NYSVV's first 8 or so months (late 1863 through the spring of 1864) he was trying constantly to get the new "veteran" regiment to act like the "Old Fifth" NYV, which had a reputation for good drill and high military bearing. The 5th NYSVV's first commander, Cleaveland Winslow, was pretty strict with his discipline and the unit books are rife with harsh punishments doled out for minor infractions. Yet, for almost 8 months the regiment continued to disobey orders like crazy. I guess in the end (by the time they joined the Army of the Potomac on June 2, 1864 at Cold Harbor) Winslow had mostly won, but it was a "battle" he waged for many months.

I think the example of the 5th NYSVV supports both sides of the debate on this thread. Some unit commanders were hard cases, and sometimes their men had ideas of their own.

John Tobey is working on an article right now trying to draw some conclusions on to just what extend were military regs and procedures followed (stuff he calls, "chickensh**") in CW volunteer regiments, and he's having a heck of a time drawing any conclusions at all because the data just seem to be all over the place--it truly varied on a unit by unit by unit basis.