"Issue" Army Utensils

[Amtmann]

Under my thread about "tin you'd like to see reproduced" a few people had mentioned the "Issue" set in the Fed EOG.

Does anyone have any proof that they were issued and not private purchase? Is there any reference to them in Army Regs or any specs? Any provanance to the set?

Just trying to get a few things straight.

[Jerseyman]

Re: "Issue" Army Utensils

Rick,

I was one of those who posted regarding army issuse utensils.

I personally do not have any proof but would suggest you speak to someone such as John Tobey who is a member of this forum. I believe he could provide some more substantial background on the matter.

I recall reading that some of the states issuing these stamped sets. I'll be seeing him tomorrow and will endeavor to dig up some more background/resource information and get back to you.

Regards,
Jeffrey Lau

[Amtmann]

Re: "Issue" Army Utensils

Thanks for the info. Anyone else know about them?

[KathyBradford]

R. E. Lee's Mess Kit

Sorry for veering off the original topic, but we visited Arlington last week. Attached, please see General Lee's mess kit.

As a side note, two of the rangers said they are planning to close Lee's home within two years to install climate and preservation systems. They expect it to be closed to the public for two years at that time, and many artifacts may be permanently removed from public display.

See it while you still may!

[markj]

Re: "Issue" Army Utensils

Sufficient evidence exists indicating that at least some, if not all, Indiana regiments were issued eating utensils.

To wit: "Issues of Camp and Garrison Equipage, by John C. New, Quarter-Master General of Indiana Volunteers, from June 7, 1862 to October 7, 1862" reports the following units were definitely issued varying quantities of "Knives and Forks each":

12th, 16th, 63rd, 71st, 73rd, 96th, 99th Indiana Volunteer Infantry regiments.

19th, 20th, 23rd Indiana artillery batteries.

Large numbers (several thousand) were also issued for use at various military encampments around Indianapolis.

In regards to "Spoons," the following units got varying quantities:

12th, 16th, 74th, 82nd IVI's with 1,050 more going to encampments around Indianapolis. Interestingly, nearly all regiments listed as receiving equipage during this period got large numbers of coffee mills. One unit, the 73rd IVI, received only 6 while the 12th IVI got a whopping 74. Coffee pots were also amply distributed with the 93rd IVI getting "only" 36 while the the 12th IVI (again!) getting 258.

Here is another item from the Indianapolis Daily Sentinel, 25 February 1862, that may be of interest:

"Mr. D. B. Hunt, Col. Simonson's clerk, was sent to Cincinnati, a day or two ago, to purchase 3,000 knives, 3,000 forks, and 3,000 spoons for the use of the rebel [Fort Donelson] prisoners in Camp Morton [Indianapolis]."

If Rebel POWs were being given utensils, this certainly means Indiana state troops were also getting them as well.

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[Agate]

Re: "Issue" Army Utensils

NARA publications
M745 Reel #36
231-237

Capt. John H. Dickerson
Cincinnati, Ohio
August 20, 1861

Telegraph

Fill Governor Dennison's Requisition for tin cups, plates, iron spoons, knives, and forks-
Charge to appropriations for equipping volunteers.

Signed,
M. C. Meigs
QuarterM. General

During this period, Capt. Dickerson (later of the Cinti Depot) was charged with procurement for McClellan's/Rosecrans army in Western Virginia, as well as camps of organization and instruction within the State of Ohio.

Dickerson filled the order in the amount of some 42,000 knives, forks, and spoons according to a list of articles furnished the Department of Ohio, published in a November 1861 edition of the Cinti. Daily Enquirer by Capt. Jos. Gill USMSK. In other words, 40,000 plus were furnished from August 20, to November 9, 1861.

According to other records of Dickerson's purchases published in the Serial Set, these goods were likely purchased on the open market. Open market purchases are not recorded in contractual tabular statements such as ExDoc 101, (army contracts for the year ending 1861).

Don't know if this is the case for all departments the USQMD furnished as I've not researched it. In this case however, the USQMD furnished them.

Tabular contract statements are traditionally what researchers have looked at in order to establish what was, and what was not, furnished by the QMD. Because these items may have been purchased on the open market, there being no special "army pattern" in order to manufacture, might* explain why they have been overlooked, unless of course, this is a fluke.

This may hold true for other items that we have often considered. Little is known concerning open market procurement and it's effects on our interpretation of support of the army by the USQMD, the research hasn't been done yet.

Regards,

John Sarver
Cin., O.

[Gallinipper]

Re: "Issue" Army Utensils

Hey Rick,
You might look in the back of Lord's Volume 1 too, which has a list of the various contractors of army goods. I believe there were several different contracts let for these types of items, although they differed in design and features judging from originals. It would seem to me that these particular "contracted for" sets would have been issued, rather than generally made available for private purchase. I don't know about the particular EOG set, but it does seem to resemble similar such items as described in the contactors listing. Just my thoughts.

Are you going to Franklin later this year?

Rich Croxton

[John E. Tobey]

Re: "Issue" Army Utensils

Rick,

I may be able to help, but I'm not sure about your question. Are you asking if that particular set in EOG (called "Mix" flatware) was issue? Or are you asking about the issue of flatware in general?

One of the tough things about flatware is that the styles issued varied depending on where they were purchased. John Sarver alluded to the system of purchase on the open market, and obviously, the different sources provided different styles of flatware. Troops raised in New England would normally have their flatware purchased from a New England source. Troops raised in Elmira NY were provided flatware purchased from a local hardware vendor who got them from a cutlery firm in NYC. Research linking styles to sources is still very much incomplete for the army as a whole, but here are just a few known details to serve as food for thought...

The stamped iron flatware you are referring to in EOG was made by the Mix firm in New England. They usually show up with New England regimental provenance...I know Don Troiani has a set with a Mass. Inf. ID. I have some Mix flatware with a Connecticut provenance. Were they an issued set or purchased later by the soldier? Don't know for sure, but strongly suspect that they were issued. Don't forget that such durable goods often had the same source -- issued sets bought locally on the open market, sutler-sold sets bought from the same open market from the sutler's sources which were often in the same area from which the sutler himself originated.

Some early-war flatware with Mass provenance is *extremely* cheap, tinned iron. I have some of this with an issued provenance to a Mass infantry private who died shortly after enlistment. On the other hand, it is so flimsy that I cannot see any reenactor wanting to have it reproduced, unlike the Mix stuff that would endure hard service.

New York issued flatware with wooden handles through at least 1862. This is documented by original examples, the statements of the soldiers themselves, and the contract books in RG 393 of the NA. The tin cups that NY issued are pretty distinctive, though, and are not being reproduced to the best of my knowledge.

Not sure if this is what you are looking for. If you need more specifics, just holler.

John Tobey