U.S Army Surplus Gear

[BishopLynch]

After searching the AC and internet to no avail I am forced to post my question to you all. I think there was a thread here years ago on the same topic but I cant seem to find it.
With regards to private citizens of the 1850's, how easily might a person have been able to acquire surplus Army equipment of the same decade the piece of equipment was made? Specifically the 1853/55 knapsack. Say 3 years, give or take, after its introduction into official usage by the US military, would your everyday private citizen have been able to acquire such a piece for his own personal use easily? Any mention of this in period accounts?

[1stMaine]

Re: U.S Army Surplus Gear

Bishop,

I would suspect that little, if any surplus property was available as you describe prior to tje end of the civil war.

Specifivally, the minfset of the QM was to use it up before issuing anything new. Gor example, when Johnston's Army went into the Utah Territory to put fown the Mormon rebellion, his command was issued with all sorts of extra clothing and uniform items. The new uniform regulations were coming in, but the QM department was loath to issue any until existing stocks of the old pattern were used yp. Therefore, uniform coats of all types, including Fragoons, Artillery, etc, were issued to the commands unvolved in order to "use them up" and make room for the newer styles.

With a smallish United States Army prior to the wr, there would have been little excess material, as there was only a small amount produced, compared to what was coming in the 1860's.

Now, privately purchasing such an item from a military goods seller is a whole 'nuther story. There were many suppliers of military and military-style goods to militia companies, and these were available to any citizen to purchase.

Having said that, however, you might also want to compare the use of a military-style article against the prevailing notion, even in the 1850's, that militarty service was the last port of refuge for a citizen. It might well be seen that such articles would be shunned by the populce unless it was the only thing that the individual could afford.

Respects,

[Ltkris81]

Re: U.S Army Surplus Gear

Tim, for some reason you have gotten me thinking this morning about this. I wonder if it would be correct for somebody portraying an early Mormon here in the Utah Territory (oh and believe me, it happens!) to use military goods. I know that when Johnston's army left the territory they sold off alot of goods to the Mormons at pennies on the dollar. That is how the first ZCMI was formed. I do not have nor have I ever seen a listing of such goods sold but I would be curious to know. But you are right as far as the variety of things issued. We have gone through boxes and boxes at Camp Floyd full of relics and have seen a lot of different items of various issue. We even found a shako buttone one day that was something like War of 1812 issue. A well known maker of goods that lives out here was very excited to see that. Hmmmm. I may have to dig a little deeper out there and see what I can find.

[mobluegraysoldier]

Re: U.S Army Surplus Gear

I have seen reprints of the "Schuyler, Hartley and Graham" catalogs listed by various sutlers/book sellers. I am not sure if they were surplus equipment dealers or were suppliers to the government, various militia units and individuals. I am sure though that the reprinted volumes can give you a good lead on the various items produced.

As far as the materials disposed of by military, about all I can say is to look at how they handled many of the weapons and other items they had in storage. At the beginning of the war the 1803 rifle and 1816 muskets were pressed into service by conversion from flintlock to percussion. (Some of these conversions were done about the time of Mexican-American war as well, and the guns placed into storage, and then re-issued.) Uniforms and other equipments were handled in about the same way. While there were some officers who routinely "condemned" equipment and ordered it disposed of the majority were loath to get rid of anything which could have possible use at a later date. Other than the period of time when Jefferson Davis was Secretary of War the military was slow in making improvements to equipment and expanding thier stores.

Kevin Baker; aka mobluegraysoldier

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Re: U.S Army Surplus Gear

The army/navy surplus system that we know of truly started at the end of the Civil War with the mass quantities of goods left over with the downsizing of the military. Prior to the war, it was indeed such a small military that it made more sense to exhaust previously issued supplies before issuing out the new/improved/changed item. Let's use the 1839 wheel cap issued to the US Army during the Mexican War as an example. . It replaced the 1833 forage cap, an ungainly all black leather and very unpopular piece of martial headgear. General Jessup, the Quartermaster General, made demands on his assistant quartermasters, that all supplies of the previous caps were to be used until no longer servicable, and then replaced by regiment. The regiments then serving in the Florida War (the 2nd Seminole War) got first crack, followed by all others on active service. The militias were still supplying their own clothing, and equipment at that point, so the change of headgear didn't affect them. Records show that the majority of the US Army had the new 1839 cap issued by the fall of 1840. This is remarkable, as the previous replacement, the 1833 for the 1820's fatigue cap (the chakos) took almost 4 years for the entire Army to totally have them replaced. The same system worked for clothing changes, arms changes, etc - use up then replace regiment by regiment

[KarinTimour]

Re: U.S Army Surplus Gear

Gentlemen:

If this discussion is also addressing the issue of "would a civilian have some of this former Army (or military) gear?" with view to potentially using it at a reenactment, there's another consideration.

Having identifiable (or suspected of being) military equipement in one's possession could jeopardize one's safety as a civilian. "Where did you get that and what are you doing with it?" was about the mildest question you could expect. The suspicion if you are in an area that is occupied (by either army) is that you a) are harboring an enemy soldier (who is hiding somewhere around your home); b) are harboring a deserter (ditto); c) killed a soldier to get it; d) stole it from a wounded soldier; e) are yourself a spy, soldier or deserter just posting as a civilian or hiding from the military at your home.

Its a real challenge, because if you're used to the convenience of portraying a military impression, with all the gear designed to be used "on the march" and at a good weight and design for being used in the field, the transition to all civilian items can sometimes be difficult. You're got tools that you're very used to using, which serve you well (canteens, haversacks, knapsacks, blankets, etc.) But there is a very real danger, if you're attending or planning to attend history heavy events.

It was very common that the suspected military item would be confiscated by the military, and the chances of you being arrested and held by military authorities were pretty strong. Some people were simply shot as suspected spies or "those offering encouragement to the enemy."

At more authentic events the military reenactors may well decide to bring down the above consequences on your head. That being said, they won't actually shoot you with real bullets -- but if you are "executed" you'll have to either leave the event or "come back" into the event as a different person (which would have to be arranged before the event started and oked with the event coordinators). If you're wounded, you have to spend the rest of the event living with the consequences of your wound.

Or you could spend the event hiding the "former military item" from the military whenever you see them and hoping it won't be confiscated. Also a period experience. If confiscated, and if the event has some means of keeping track of where the item was put once confiscated, you could probably get it back. But if the military are moving quickly and are using the event as a tactical, chances are good that your belongings might spend the event stashed behind a tree somewhere, and it might be returned to you after suffering the elements for a weekend.

Hope that's helpful,
Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

[FTrooper]

Re: U.S Army Surplus Gear

I agree with all the above. It was not US Army practice to "surplus" items prior to the ACW except arms (it was REAL easy to get a M1841 Rifle after 1849). But at the same time we have to look at the large industry of military equipments for "Militia"...back then there was no national guard as we know it today and with the exception of arms and sometimes accoutrements, militias had to arm and equip themselves. You can find units wearing English Pattern Gear before the War, Contract variations as we know then today were actually items being sold publically before the way. I "India-Rubber and Gutta-Percha..." my favorite 1850's add in the book deals with a company selling knapsacks and haversack...those illustrated are not of current army patterns and then add sayy "various patterns available".

So, what one would need to do is look over original pictures of a local "pre-war" militia in your units area, US Pattern stuff is never really wrong (say the previous issue) I know belts and pouches were pretty standard (I have seen pre-war southerners with the M1855 rifle belt for sword bayonet) but seems haversacks, canteens, and knapsacks were of non-regulation types based on the unit's fancy and or available supplieers (ie the "elusive" Mexican War "hardpack"...the US Army NEVER issued a hardpack in either canvas nor leather...but originals DO exist). As for uniforms...militia really tried to avoid US Army regular clothing...one reason was for "distinction" and "esprit de corps" the other ties in to this in that the regualrs were considered the lowest level of civil servant and no one wanted to be associated with that!

Basically its alot like our modern "militias" (you know, the guys living in Idaho and stuff) they have lots of military gear, but its not US Army issue (actually even the US Army isn't doing alot if "issue" right now, look at the guys in Iraq...they are ALL wearing after-market pouches, packs, suspenders, water carriers, etc.

Just a few observations. Its a neat topic and one few really research.

Most Respectfully,

Chris Fischer
F-Troop
&
Fort McKavett SHS

[BishopLynch]

Re: U.S Army Surplus Gear

Thanks for the replies they are very helpful.
It is difficult to dig up much on this looking at originals because Im not really looking for really organized, uniformed militia units, but the "minuteman" if you will. The man who, when there was a disturbance grabbed his shotgun/rifle, got as military looking as he could and then went off to help with said disturbance.

Chris Ander's 1859 militia event being held in April at Ft. Washington, MD got me thinking on this one. After the John Brown raid on Harpers Ferry men are coming to the fort to be trained by the U.S Army. Im sure it would be natural for those men who weren't really part of an organized militia, but merely grabbed a handful of townsmen together to get trained would want to "fit in" and look military. Real military gear would have absolutley helped out with that.

Thanks for your replies they have really helped. If anyone else has any information please post it.