Yank infantry with pistols

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

Hallo Kameraden!

It has already been well mentioned here, but...

I would just add the strong caveat that these things are "happenstances" and "occurances" only- meaning we need be on guard against taking the exceptions and making them the global practices.
Or, that we "invert the telescope." I am not saying it is, but the "drift" of posts like this can quickly move in the wrong direction with us looking through the large end of the telescope.
Fortunately so far, no one has referenced or posted early War studio images of soldiers armed with pistols, revolvers, and bowie knives (studio props). :-)

I recall an instance of two Confederate officers dueling with M1841 rifles at 40 yards? But I would not want to make a global or universal statement about dueling, or using '41 rifles in duels. (As I recall the officers were crappy shots and missed each other- so I would not want to make a statement about CS officers' marksmanship either...) :-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[tmdreb]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

On this issue, I feel it is just as fallacious to create a "rule" (absolute statement) using documentation of someone throwing away a pistol as it is to do the same using documentation of someone carrying or using such an object.

Gentlemen, we need to quit relying on crutches such as these "rules" and actually learn to research our impressions. Just like "hardcoreisms" such as "no hat brass", "no blue canteen covers" and "no gaiters" found in "authentic" guidelines for events and units, these rules based on separating ourselves from the mainstream or farb reenactors should finally now be obsolete. There is all kinds of documentation for times and places where enlisted men carried sidearms of various types. Denying this fact is futile and a step backwards in terms of authenticity. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The best argument against infantry reenactors carrying pistols is safety. The rest don't hold much water.

Think of it this way: Just as it is inappropriate to justify the wearing of jaguar skin chaps in any impression based on a photo of a captain in the 3rd TX Cav, it is also inappropriate to say that "[nearly all] enlisted infantry didn't carry sidearms" based on a statement or three in certain situations that don't cover all troops in all locations, at all times during the War.

I've said it before, but there have been all kinds of pocket pistols and side knives, large and small, found at Red River Campaign sites, where some of the War's hardest and farthest marching troops fought against each other. These weapons were unsuitable for cavalry use, were not tossed away at the beginning of the War, were not sent home to the family because of their value, but instead were carried through many late-War battles.

What I believe is at the crux of this discussion is the limitations of the PEC concept. The generic impression is becoming more and more difficult to justify in terms of authenticity. It is a plain and simple fact that there was no such thing as a "standard infantryman" of the American Civil War. No soldier's diary reads exactly like another's. If we want to authentically represent the soldiers of that conflict, we need to actually put some effort into researching and coordinating impressions with others attending the event rather than just coming up with "rules" that are supposed to apply for virtually all "basic infantry" impressions as a shortcut around research.

[Jefferson Guards]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

It's quite well known though that various color-guards and color-bearers were armed "non-regulation" quite a bit. Various units bought repeating rifles, revolvers, etc. See attached pic of the 7th ILL Veteran Vols. color guard. And if you flip through the Blue Acorn Press Echoes of Battle books you see similar photos of well armed colorguards.

I had always thought that the 7th Ill Veteran Volunteers purchased the Henry repeating rifles out of their own pockets. I believe this was an entire regiment thing and not just the color guard. I could be mistaken.

[Bill Cross]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

What I believe is at the crux of this discussion is the limitations of the PEC concept. The generic impression is becoming more and more difficult to justify in terms of authenticity. It is a plain and simple fact that there was no such thing as a "standard infantryman" of the American Civil War. No soldier's diary reads exactly like another's. If we want to authentically represent the soldiers of that conflict, we need to actually put some effort into researching and coordinating impressions with others attending the event rather than just coming up with "rules" that are supposed to apply for virtually all "basic infantry" impressions as a shortcut around research.

You make some very good points, though I don't think the PEC model is yet ready for the scrap heap. In some instances, no surviving information about the equipage of the unit being portrayed at an event survives. In that case, returning to the PEC touchstone provides us with a way to standardize things. This has both historical advantages (projecting an image in comformity with the preponderance of received visual and verbal information) and modern, reenactor plusses, specifically safety (pocket pistols are dangerous) and affordability. It gets pretty damned expensive having a wide variety of accoutrements (I have a forked tongue, roller buckle and snake belt for my CS impression, do I also need a GA frame belt, too? ).

But the PEC standard should be reviewed as more information becomes available. The knee-jerk prohibition of vests in the ranks is my favorite shibboleth: photos and research would indicate that vests were very popular among enlisted men (men in general in the 19th C.), so banning them at events may make us feel superior to farb fests, but it isn't authentic.

[KathyBradford]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

There seem to be many young soldiers who posed with weapons, either their own or the photographer's, to have their likeness made. http://www.ohiocivilwar.com/cw21.html has a photo of GGG Uncle Simon Presler of the 21st Ohio, Co. F holding a peppershot revolver (one "s", not two; Co. F, not E per the caption.) His unit was issued Colt revolving rifles. He was killed in May '64 at Resaca.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

Hallo Kameraden und Kameraderinnen!

"If we want to authentically represent the soldiers of that conflict, we need to actually put some effort into researching and coordinating impressions with others attending the event rather than just coming up with "rules" that are supposed to apply for virtually all "basic infantry" impressions as a shortcut around research."

Indeed... and perhaps the topic of another post (although over the years we have gone back and forth on this one).

To further the discussion:

IMHO, PEC serves two basic purposes:

1. When research and documentation is unavailable (please, no one read that as "not looked for."), the PEC Rule is intended (please no paving stones on the road to Hell comments) to help reduce the "exception, the one-of-kind, the abberation, the rara avis, etc. Reducing the researched and documented oddity serves to present the visual appearance of "by like regiment/by like company Quartermaster issuances.

(Granted we can discuss who got what when, who needed or did not need what at the next resupply/reissuance, at what point (near or far) from an issuance, how many of what made up, or did not make up the next issuance of blouses, trousers, blankets, etc., etc.
But my gist here is that I have been in a 250 man federal battalion where only two men had the same blouse, and in companies of 30, 40, 50 men all with notably different makers, textures, stytles, colors, and degree of wear and newness of clothing, accoutrements.
No, I am not calling for xeroxes, cookie-cutters, and clones but somewhat of "leveling" or "unifying" visual that SOME of these men might be serving together at the same time and in the same place (and further personalizing their "GI.")

2. While I, or you, or the next lad might have researched and acquired the World's most accurate, authentic, and impressive impression of clothing, kit, and how it was was worn- for the 323rd Minnesota Menopausal Militia for July 2, 1863-

as Herr Phil states there needs to be "event coordination" going on so that PEC Rules (either understood or not understood, applied or not applied, followed or ignored, enforced or not enforced, would be totally unnecessary.

What I seem to see a lot of is "Take the 323rd Minnesota Menopausal Militia's 1861 brass moose antlers from your Hardee hat so you can be the 1077th Ohio Heavy Comedian Reserves. (No offense or derison directed against the 323rd- they are a bunch of swell lads and great guys, really.)

At any rate, IMHO, PEC, like "by like company issuances" is a heretical and often debated/discussed/cursed topic. (and if we were really doing a good job none of it would be needed...)

And last...

"....rather than just coming up with "rules" that are supposed to apply for virtually all "basic infantry" impressions as a shortcut around research."

I fully agree.

If I look out across the CW Community (the mistake here, I am sure)- and everyone "Got It," (research and coordination)" there would be no Rule Breakers and we would need no Rules. ;-) (If our only tool is a hammer, we see all of our problems as nails.) And sometimes, event "Guidelines" and PEC are our hammers. :-(

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Heretic and Blasphemer
With or Without PEC and Rules, Striving to Appear as the Men in CW Images Appear Mess

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[tmdreb]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

My real beef with PEC is what it ends up being used for, and not its good intentions. Remember the road to Hell is paved with...nevermind, we're leaving that one out. :wink_smil The examples used by Herr Schmidt and Herr Cross were appropriate and useful applications. Obviously, we don't know what every man was wearing at any given time during the War. Sometimes, we do have to rely on what was likely worn or used in a specific scenario. What I don't like about PEC is how it is used in threads such as these to make broad, sweeping statements like "infantry rarely carried pistols, and if they did, they later tossed them away." What I feel would have been a more appropriate response to the original post would have been along the lines of, "This would be a fun scenario to do in next year's event when we portray the 13th WI in Kansas" or even, "That's an interesting reference, check out this one that's very similar" (as what some posters in this thread actually did) instead of, "This goes against our PEC rule, so we have to discount this as much as possible."

Two other reasons why such posts are unneccessary are that the original poster sure seemed to me to be just making available interesting information, and not attempting to justify part of his impression. Even if he was, reason #2 would be that if the poster had said he was going to now carry a pistol based on this evidence, he could simply have been told that carrying around a loaded pistol (blanks or otherwise) in one's pocket at a reenactment isn't very safe. No authenticity debate needed.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

Agreed Herr Phil!

I believe we are having to deal with two concepts at the same time, and trying to make them one:

-the actual, factual, historical record, and
-what we kit-bash and cobble, create and recreate, meld and merge, blend and mix, lift and separate (sorry), and just plain make up in the name of reenacting and attempting efforts at "living history."

While I support PEC as far as it goes, and in the proper context- I also strongly hate when it is misinterpreted and misused as a band-aid on and for other cuts and scrapes.

Others' mileage may vary.

Lads, I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion on revolvers and pistols now in progress... :-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[KentuckyReb]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

Herr Schmidt:

If you ever get out of whatever line of work you're in right now (and I have my suspicions about that might be, given that you sound like my favorite professor from my 'wine, women & song' days), you'll have no difficulty finding a career in stand-up. Nobody could ever call one of your posts 'dry'. Minnesota Menopausal Militia indeed. :D If you'd been the one writing the textbooks we used I would have had a more distinguished college career, I think. Cheers.

[RockCityGuard]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

Just ran across this.... thought I'd add it to the discussion....

Diary of Corporal Elias D. Moore 114th O.V.I Co. A

October 13th 1863 Camp near Vermillion, LA
Preparing for the election. Answered Pa's and Ma's letter and wrote to Aunt Mary. Had Brigade review in afternoon. Maj. Lynch resigned. Traded my revolver for a watch.

and another...

Private, Fifth Independent Ohio Sharpshooters

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6964/index.htm

July 13, 1864 weather warm and pleasant to day
I traded my watch for A rolver to day
there was between 1 and 2 hundred rebs marched to the
rear to day
I got A letter from home today

[stx]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

Looking at it in a logistic, where would they have kept their pistols on marches. It would have been hard to keep a holster on your belt with a haversack, canteen, cap box, and cartrige box plus a haversack/blanket roll.

[Rob Weaver]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

The majority of the quotes cited so far simply use language like "revolver" or "pistol" irrespective of type. The exceptions are the colorguard who seemed to be fighting with a Navy revolver, and the references above to the Sharps and 4-barreled pistol. This is an avenue that no one seems to have traveled down yet. The multiple-barrelled Sharps pocket pistol, firing a .22 cartridge, a derringer essentially, was a very popular little pistol in the civilian world of the day. They weigh next to nothing and could be carried in your pants, vest or blouse pocket with no appreciable discomfort. In the unpleasant unlikelihood of hand-to-hand fighting, it would give the bearer 4 little friends who could make all the difference. I suspect that more of these little guys traveled through the war than we might want to believe, and that something like them may be what was being used in the quoted incidents. Now to the reenacting application: I don't think there is one. There is no safe range at which one could shoot a pistol with a less than 3" barrel, even if they're loaded with blanks. Furthermore, these little pistols are dangerous to load. If you slam the barrels back on the firing pin, at least one, and maybe all 4 rounds are going to explode into your hand. Ouch. (There is a non-firing replica which may be just dandy for scenarios involving this little pistol, but it may be considered heresy even for suggesting that.) Back to lurking.

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

Just for safety alone those little guys should not be allowed in the ranks. Documented or not, talk about a cheap fire arm.

But doesn't this conversation really boil down to: we all admit that it happened on occassion but how often did it happen.

And isn't the PEC really playing with house odds as opposed to against.

So we have proof great great uncle Jube carried his revolver that day. And he was 1 of 300 guys in the 325 (?) MMM and also one out of 2000 men in the 1st. Great Easten Brigade under Colonel Whatsit.

We have no proof any other infantrymen were so that makes 1999 against.

So then the odds of carrying and using the pistol are .0005%.

Multiply that by the 200 men actually in ranks and someone gets to carry the screw out of the pistol to arrive at an authentic percentage.

So if no one carries a pistol aren't we alot closer to an actual portrayal than if someone actually carries one?

[Poor Private]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

I just picked this book up at an antigue store for a whooping 2 bucks "Gone For A Soldier" the civil war memoirs of Private Alfred Bellard.
Beginning with the last sentence on page 69.

"While carrying water for the wounded, the day after the battle, some fellow took a fancy to my knapsack and when I returned it was gone. I did not care so much for the knapsack, blanket or dress coat, for they could be picked up all over, but I was rather mad to loose my revolver,papers,etc, as it was presented to me by my father, while on a visit to our camp at Trenton."
So we have another instance of a private who carried a revolver, and where he carried it. Too bad he didn't say what type of revolver it was.
This is early war the penninsula campaign, at Williamsburg May5, 1862.

[Secesh]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

2 points come to mind here....first, that it was presented to him by his father ( not issued), and secondly...it would be very difficult to retrieve in the heat of battle from your knapsack. The fact that he kept it stored in his knapsack I would think means that it was probably unloaded and unused. Just mein 2 cents...thanks.