White Gloves

[Edmund{Road Apple}]

Re: White Gloves

Yes i agree white gloves do get anoying at events but they are in army regulations. so they must have had them (or didn't due to supple issues) this may bring up a questiong was it only US infantry regualrs who got them? or did volunteer units get them as well?

Edmund,
The AC posting rules clearly spell out the requirement that all members MUST sign their full name to their posts.
Please add your full name to your signature line for your account to avoid further warnings up to including deletion of your account. Thank you.
Gentofthesouth1861.

[Charles Heath]

Re: White Gloves

Road Apple,

Your question is answered multiple times in this very thread. For folks such as yourself who are are just now migrating over from Osz, it may help to actually read the threads before adding in questions that have already been answered.

Once you learn to sign your name, take a few minutes to learn to use the search engine, to lower the risk of asking "who makes the best knapsack," or "what do I put in my haversack." A search engine is a terrible thing to waste.

[BCIDick]

Re: White Gloves

I believe the question was how prevalent was the use of white gloves by federal troops, with no differentiation between troops actively campaigning, and those in winter quarters, manning fixed fortifications, or detailed to countless other duties. It's a no brainer that units conducting active operations (campaigning) would have little time or use for white glove parades. Those who may have been stuck in a fort somewhere, or who were in winter quarters probably had to parade with white gloves as supplies and the whims of their respective commanders dictated.

As a side observation, these are nice examples of the troops correctly demonstrating the position of support arms.

Bob Firth

[SCTiger]

Re:Taking off the White Gloves

If a reenactor has actually went on a march or really lived in primitive camping conditions, the idea of sliding pristine white gloves over your grimy, mud and ash stained hands seems awfully strange and silly. Imagine the campaign veteran, that hasn't washed in days/weeks/months and who is filthy from head to toe, being required to slip on white gloves and leggings! It would almost be comical. I agree with Kevin, this is strictly a garrison, formal parade or permanent camp requirement. It would be similar to a modern soldier wearing his dress blues to go marching or dig a fighting position. The Army has always recognized the difference between field and dress gear. Why would a field soldier (officers excluded) wear dress gear to the battlefield march? Let's use some common sense here.

Another reenactorism that is perpetuated by those who don't ever march, who sleep on cots, reside in A-frames on grass covered fields and supply themselves with every modern convenience in camp. An "idea" situation that no campaign veterans ever experienced.

[theknapsack]

Re: White Gloves

All people who believe that a soldier would have carried something because it was in regulation (at all times) is grievously wrong (I know, I'm stating the obvious). There are countless accounts of soldiers throwing away gear throughout the war because it added weight.
From a modern prospective, do soldiers now carry their Class A's or B's (or both) when they are on a patrol, or even overseas (I'm not sure about the latter).
Also, it is important to remember that the soldiers of the period were not like their modern volunteer counterparts. Most regiments only drilled for a month, plus they were drilled by mostly untrained officers, not by extremely strict regulations. For example, a simple study of many photos will reveal the non-existence of constant uniformity, down to the way something is worn (unless on parade). Just my opinion. Just look to the situation and portrayal, that is your guiding light. Most pictures don't have white gloves in them.

[billwatson]

Re: White Gloves

So Michael, you asked for opinions and got them.

A brief note that Capt. Louis Francine of the 7th NJVI, while the regiment was being assembled and trained in Trenton, drew favorable attention to himself by providing his Company A with white gloves and otherwise sprucing them up to stand out from the crowd. His men might later wish that he'd spent as much time grasping the concept of defilade, but it's just one example of all the arbitrary and variable things that can go into a decision about something as mundane as white gloves.
Seems like they're over among the "things that usually don't matter much but might once in a while for some reason or other."
The well-drilled units at the Remembrance Day parade in Gettysburg recently did show up very well in white gloves. The badly drilled ones merely drew attention to their lack of skill with white-gloved. hands pointing out the many awkwardnesses. One more thing to think about: they invite attention and compel the gaze.

[Watchdog]

Re: White Gloves

Mr. Deese writes:
"If a reenactor has actually went on a march or really lived in primitive camping conditions, the idea of sliding pristine white gloves over your grimy, mud and ash stained hands seems awfully strange and silly. Imagine the campaign veteran, that hasn't washed in days/weeks/months and who is filthy from head to toe, being required to slip on white gloves and leggings!"

Yes, soldiers got dirty on the march and on campaign, but that does not mean that they did not wash (hands and face at a minimum) daily or bathe in some fashion when they could. I personally feel some of us take the "campaign equals filth" idea too an extreme. One would also expect that company officers and non-coms would insist that weapons be kept as clean as possible. I have read numerous soldiers's accounts where washing is mentioned--even on campaign. Even POWs tried to keep this small part of human civility in their daily routine when possible.

[Hank Trent]

Re: White Gloves

Was going to go searching for this thread, and conveniently found it bumped again!

Just ran across the following, while researching the 34th Massachusetts. It's a soldier's letter written from near Washington in the summer of 1863, at http://pastvoices.com/usa/stone18631305.shtml:

There is one thing--I think that we have more things to provoke a fellow in this Regiment then in any other Regiment. I will give you an instance. When we marched the Captain of all our Companies to take as little as we could possibly get along with. So most every man in the Regiment left their poorest pair of pants and their old leather stocks and some of them left their white gloves because the Captain told them to leave their old pants and not take but one pair and all such things. And last Sunday, after we had got up here, when we came out on inspection, the Colonel came around and told the Captains of all the companies to see that every man had a new pair of pants and two pairs of white gloves and a stock and he told the men if they did not have them by next Sunday, he would put every man in the guardhouse and the next day he issued an order so that we have to come out on dress parade with our knapsacks on for two weeks and the Colonel told the Captains the to have the price taken out of the next pay. He says that he will se if the men are going to throw away everything. What do you think of that?

Now, if we should march, I never could carry an extra pair of pants, besides the rest of my things, which is an overcoat, a dress coat, my shirts, towels, stockings, handkerchief, besides my woolen and rubber blankets and other little trinkets and our rations.

Some context: The 34th had formed the year before (1862) and spent their first year stationed in the camps around Washington, with minimal marching and combat experience so far. They had a reputation for being well disciplined, with strict officers.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: White Gloves

I think these recent posts point up that things in the Civil War could (and did) vary considerably from one regiment to hte next, and from one time to the next within the same regiment. One martinet colonel or captain could be a stickler for seemingly nonsensical (to volunteers) protocols such as wearing white gloves, and another in the same brigade couldn't have cared less about the same issue. Attempting to attach generalizations to these things is like chasing the wind.

Similarly, with respect to Bill Christen's post above, some soldiers certainly did try to clean up when they could even on campaign (there's the famous image of Federal soldiers bathing in the North Anna River during the arduous Overland Campaign of May 1864) but for many men a campaign meant little opportunity for bathing, coupled with the knee-deep mud or choking dust that plagued soldiers on many marches. The one generalization I'd make on this is that soldiers on campaign were certainly dirtier than when they were in a camp, but to just what extent for a given regiment in a given campaign is something to determine on a case-by-case basis from the history books. Certainly the "all soldiers were filthy dirty on campaign" is just as untrue as "the army regs said to keep clean so soldiers did so at all times". In the end, back on the topic of this thread, I think Greg Deese made an important point: it's hard to picture a guy on a dirty march putting on nice clean white gloves. That said, probably someone somewhere ordered his men to do just that at some time in the war.

[DaveGink]

Re: White Gloves

As already mentioned, context is the key (both in reality and in a reenacting scenario). Were they garrisoned or actively campaigning? Were they being inspected? Was it a ceremony? Was there a visiting Senator, General, or other VIP? Were they in formation simply for a unit photo? How strict was the commander? Etc. etc.

As to the first post, I believe it is safe to say there are plenty of photos showing white gloves in use to indicate it wasn't an entirely rare event depending on the circumstances.

As to whether or not other branches and volunteer units also wore them at times, here is a photo of the the 3rd Pennsylvania Cavalry - Co D in March of '64 at Brandy Station:

[DaveGink]

Re: White Gloves

Here is a detail shot showing about a third of the men from this Company. I love their mix of sacks, jackets, and headware.

[Kace]

Re: White Gloves

Another point that shows that gloves were probably hit and miss. Take a look at the detail photo posted by Dave Gink. The officer and the private behind and to his right do not have gloves on. I think there are a couple more on the other side of the larger photo but the detail is not there to tell for sure. Here, in a documented instance gloved troops, you have both those with gloves and those without.

Kace

[DaveGink]

Re: White Gloves

Another point that shows that gloves were probably hit and miss. Take a look at the detail photo posted by Dave Gink. The officer and the private behind and to his right do not have gloves on. I think there are a couple more on the other side of the larger photo but the detail is not there to tell for sure. Here, in a documented instance gloved troops, you have both those with gloves and those without.

Kace

Actually, the two over to the right in front who are not wearing white gloves are wearing gauntlets instead.

Here are the rest of them. It's not as big as the detail shot I took from the left because I didn't want the file to get too big, but you can make them out. There does looks to be a couple in the back without gloves.

[Kace]

Re: White Gloves

Actually, the two over to the right in front who are not wearing white gloves are wearing gauntlets instead.

Here are the rest of them. It's not as big as the detail shot I took from the left because I didn't want the file to get too big, but you can make them out. There does looks to be a couple in the back without gloves.

Dave:

Thanks for the detail shot of the right. I could not make out the gauntlets over there.

Kace

[BobSullivanPress]

Re: White Gloves

Well, I'm jumping in kind of late here, but there are some things that are being overlooked in the interest of looking "on campaign".

1. The idea of putting white gloves on hands was to hide the dirt and grime of hands and to give a clean, (dare I say it?) uniform look to the soldiers.

2. Soldiers did NOT carry everything. Items issued but not used could be turned in to the quartermaster (with proper receipts given) and drawn later when needed. Do you think all troops carried overcoats in July? Of course not. Overcoats were turned in in the Spring, and obtained again in the fall. Frock coats, dress hats, scales (and probably gloves) were turned in when on the move. But they were only a brigade quartermaster wagon train away, so if needed for parade or review, they were easily obtained.

Clothing was part of your pay. If you lost it, you paid for it. If you didn't need new, you received the cash equivalent.

It's not rocket science, it's logistics.