Blousing of trousers

[KarinTimour]

Re: Blousing of trousers

Wow to both of you!

Jake: I never noticed that about the Mississippi monument, and the very next time I'm there I'll go scope it out. I've been given one printed reference to Southern soldiers tieing their socks up their legs when the ribbing died, but that would be the first visual reference. I don't know enough about the history of the Mississippi monument -- when was it put up and were there veterans still alive? I'd like to believe they wouldn't just make something like that up as part of the "ragged Confederate" Lost Cause image, but you never know. In any case, it's not the first time I'd heard of it. But speaking of "things that are under-represented" I bet you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of reenactors who tie up their socks.....

Jason, I loved the pictures! The Federal is definately wearing Federal issue stockings -- no ribbing to speak of, and you can see how the edge is starting to give up the ghost -- it's rolling outwards and bagging, even though he's got his trousers stuffed in them.

The Confederate's definately not wearing confiscated Federal Issue ones -- you can clearly see the lines of ribbing on the top 2-2.5 inches of his socks, even though they are very stretched out. Also, the ribbing is the same color as the sock (or as well as I can tell from this picture).

Thank you both!
Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

[hoosiersojer]

Re: Blousing of trousers

About the only time I have bloused is when I have encountered heavy under brush or known areas of poison ivy/ stinging nettle/ ticks/ or other unsavory little characters. It is not a routine practice for me but on the occasion I have implemented this course of action, I was real glad I did ! :wink_smil

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Blousing of trousers

Thanks, Jason! I was looking for the same picture (the Feds at Manassas on the O&A) to post yesterday!

Also, on the CS side, there are the artworks by AC Redwood giving several depictions of Confederates on campaign, most showing bloused trousers. Redwood was himself a Confederate veteran and would have known what was common practice and what wasn't.

[KarinTimour]

Re: Blousing of trousers

Dear John:

Thanks for the lead on images of Confederates who bloused, alwasy interested in more pictures, drawings, etc. of socks.

Ok, so the "mostly Federals bloused" theory seems to be disproven. I was thinking about the picture of the dead Confederate that Jason posted yesterday, and how much mud was on his shoe. If your trousers were too long for you and you'd rolled them up, and you were going to be marching through an area where there was a lot of mud, couldn't blousing also serve to keep down the amount of mud you'd have to drag with you? Granted it would still cling to the socks, but I'm theorizing, perhaps less so than if it had a nice cuff to collect in.

I also think Kevin's point is well taken -- blousing if you have to march through through poison ivy or stinging nettles or tick country would make sense.

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

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Blousing of trousers

Mr. Rice,

Forgive me if I misunderstand your point. However, it appears to me that you are making a broad claim that "trouser blousing" was a predominantly "Trans Miss" practice based solely on your experience as a reenactor in the 21st Century dealing with bugs on western side of the Mississippi.

Am I mistaken? Do you have any sources you can cite from the period to support this claim?

Personally, I believe that this practice was probably common, regardless of army or theatre of operations. Soldiers probably did it for a number of reasons, many of which we've yet to mention or discover ourselves. Bugs might be one explanation, but so might socks with little, no, or weakened elasticity at the top. Ever been walking with a sock bunched up under your foot? Not a comfortable situation.

In short, I think the explanation you propose is probably correct, but it is not likely the whole story, nor does likely it support the argument that it is a "predominantly Trans Miss practice".

... but then again
... maybe I'm all wet! :wink_smil

[Curt Schmidt]

Hallo!

IMHO...
The "blousing" of socks will keep ticks from being able to climb up one's legs (it can be useless for some larval chiggers that are microscopic and small enough to pass through the weave of some fabrics) on the inside.

And, "blousing" exposes the tops of one's shoes to allow pebbles and bits of trigs and debris to fall inside to become a nuisance. As well as snow, ice, and mud.

;)

I have been wearing a pair of "unribbed" wool socks since 1986, their having been "bloused" according to the "Hardcore Fashion" of the mid to late '80's.
Although not perfect, I dealt with the stretched out tops by hot water laudering the tops to shrink them.

Curt

[KarinTimour]

Re: Blousing of trousers

Dear Curt:

See, this is why it's a real help to get feedback from those of you who are wearing brogans in the field. It makes sense now that I think about it that blousing would serve to streamline the pathway for debris, snow, etc. to get into your shoes. Never thought of it that way, but trousers serve as a sort of "porch roof" to deflect at least some of that from sliding inside one's shoes.

With regard to the "formerly ribbed" stockings you're using -- I was interested in your hot water shrinkage method -- did you just launder the tops in hot water, but not the rest of the sock? Did you fell them by switching from hot to cold and back or just put them in hot water and then let them dry? Did it take permanently, did you get the shrinkage you wanted, or do you have to repeat the process every time you wear them?

Thanks for the feedback on the blousing not working as mud-avoidance,

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

[RN_PAC]

Re: Blousing of trousers

Here is a montage of pics I have "collected" over some time demonstrating blousing. Of course, for every one of these are 200 without blousing, but I thought they were interesting. I know of a couple of noteable examples I would love to add to this "collection"...the Rhode Islander I mentioned above, and another pic that I have seen identified as the 10th NY/National Zouaves (not sure how accurate that is) during one of their phases in Federal blue with a dude having his stockings hiked up almost to his knees (and I do believe they were ribbed, for what it's worth, although they certainly may have been privately procured)

Although not perfect, I dealt with the stretched out tops by hot water laudering the tops to shrink them.

Curt

That's what I do when the cuffs of sweaters strech out! Does seem to work half decently...

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Blousing of trousers

Hallo!

"With regard to the "formerly ribbed" stockings you're using -- I was interested in your hot water shrinkage method -- did you just launder the tops in hot water, but not the rest of the sock? Did you fell them by switching from hot to cold and back or just put them in hot water and then let them dry? Did it take permanently, did you get the shrinkage you wanted, or do you have to repeat the process every time you wear them?'

Yes, I just hot water laundered just the tops, and let them dry.
No, the process never took "permanently" or perfectly, but I would guess they would stretch back out after 2-3 events.
What makes it hard, is that I stopped blousing about 12 years ago.

(The idea came to me from 18th century problems. The hand-woven over-the-knee wool stockings did the same, as did brain-tanned deerskin leggings from the repeated stretching of the knees from walking as well as kneeling around camp. (Nearly skin tight new leggings that took 10 minutes to peel on- would start to stretch out after just one outting).

IMHO, the practice of "blousing" on th emarch or in the field was one of those things some soldiers did, or did not do, based upon their druthers when it came to what they saw, what they heard or were told to do or try, and what worked or did not work for them based upon their personal experience between Fresh Fish and veteran Campaigner.

Curt

[hoosiersojer]

Re: Blousing of trousers

Just out of curiosity, why was my post deleted ?

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Blousing of trousers

Hallo!

I was browsing through my reference pictures and stumbled upon the Mississippi statue refered to..

While some argue that reenacting often imitates art, and not raising the discussion that art often can imitate life... here is the picture:



Curt

[Corp. 77th PVI]

Re: Blousing of trousers

Got me wrong, was not saying it was predominantly a Trans-Mississippi practice. More that the conditions that would avail soldiers to blouse their pants inside their socks would be more prevalent in the West than the East as far as critters were concerned. Though I am also sure that soldiers in the East also did it out of necessity.

Soldiers are always practical people. The more you soldier, the more practicable you get. You got problems with bugs (ticks and red bugs), you blouse you pants inside the socks to keep them out. I got that from a Shelby Foote (will dig and see if I can find the citation…one of the things he talked about was how the Union Soldiers suffered horribly from the red bugs, which many had not encountered before). Got problems with the socks falling down, you blouse them or do anything to keep them up (even tie them up). I learned that in the modern Army on the first 20 mile march I went on (gosh I was young back then). You do what you have to do to keep going and if it works, you do it again, and if it doesn’t you don’t.

I was able to latch onto a pictorial history of the Civil War that I gave to my First Sergeant as an X-Mass present (looked through it first though). One of the things I noticed was that in most of the pictures, everyone was prim and proper, very staged. Well, of course they were. Having your picture taken was a big thing that you wanted to look your best for (or at least a bit closer to regulation anyway). But, in some of the pictures, the impromptu ones, it was very interesting. One was of the soldiers in an Iowa Infantry Regiment, boys just standing around their camp in the woods (pines trees is what it looked like). Some had brogans with the pant legs bloused inside their socks (and it was obvious they weren’t government issued socks either), others had pant legs out, some wore boots (looked like Artillery short boots) with the pant legs over them, and then there were a couple with the short boots that had the pant legs tucked in. So much for Army Regulations. But, the key was there was no uniformity in foot gear or having the pant legs bloused or not bloused. They were obviously on campaign; because no body would have willing pitched a camp in the heavy thicket they were in if they weren’t.

I have also read in the previous post of the soldiers having to pay for their replacement socks. By mid 63 if I am right, this would not necessarily be the case. If I remember correctly, Company Commanders (and Regiment Commanders for the entire Regiment) were able to authorize replacement uniform items at no cost to the soldiers because of the “rigors of combat”. Ergo, the beginning of the old “combat loss” in the supply system. I am sure some Commanders were diligent on this, as some probable didn’t care if their men were shod or barefoot or had to pay for everything (though I think the latter would have been weeded out by 63 though). When I was reading through Hardtack and Coffee, it is mentioned that socks were one of the things that soldiers always wanted to have sent from home because the government issue was so shoddy. And, after seeing some reproduction government issue, I can understand why. I know I looked at them and more or less went I sure ain’t marching all day long with those things on, I want to have feet left by the end of the day. Learned many lessons with 21 years in the modern Army, some of which I don’t have to repeat as a re-enactor to relearn. Also, in the history of the 154th New York (“The Hardtack Regiment”), it mentioned that halfway to Atlanta, the Regiment’s brogans and trousers gave out and they were issued cavalry trousers, new socks, and cavalry boots because that was what the Quartermaster could get his hands on. This would have been a “new” experience for the 154th, since they were used to the highly efficient supply system and the shorter supply lines in the Army of the Potomac, which is where they were until they were shoved out west after Gettysburg.
So when would you blouse your pants inside your pant legs. Well, when you felt you needed to. Would you do it on parade or guard, probably not (or not after the Corporal or Sergeant caught you anyway). Would you do it for a staged picture? Probably not, since you wanted to look your best. If the ticks or redbugs were bad, you bet. If your socks keep falling down, probably. You would do anything to keep your socks up, to include wrapping cord or string around them to keep them up. So when would you do it? When you needed to and it wasn’t absolutely forbidden.

[Steve Acker]

Re: Blousing of trousers

Has there been any conversation about tieing the bottom of the pant leg? From this account found in Confederate Veteran, he describes the practice.
"Just above the ankles each trouser leg is tied closely to the limb - a la Zouave - and beneath reaches of dirty socks disappear in a pair of badly used and curiously contorted shoes. (Source: Written by G.H. Baskett, Nashville, Tenn., published in the Confederate Veteran, Vol. I, No. 12, Nashville, Tenn., December 1893.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/typicalconfedsoldier.htm)

Steve Acker

http://civilwartangents.blogspot.com/

[KarinTimour]

Re: Blousing of trousers

..........Some had brogans with the pant legs bloused inside their socks (and it was obvious they weren’t government issued socks either), .....

..........I have also read in the previous post of the soldiers having to pay for their replacement socks. By mid 63 if I am right, this would not necessarily be the case. If I remember correctly, Company Commanders (and Regiment Commanders for the entire Regiment) were able to authorize replacement uniform items at no cost to the soldiers because of the “rigors of combat”. Ergo, the beginning of the old “combat loss” in the supply system. I am sure some Commanders were diligent on this, as some probable didn’t care if their men were shod or barefoot or had to pay for everything (though I think the latter would have been weeded out by 63 though). ...........

........When I was reading through Hardtack and Coffee, it is mentioned that socks were one of the things that soldiers always wanted to have sent from home because the government issue was so shoddy. And, after seeing some reproduction government issue, I can understand why. I know I looked at them and more or less went I sure ain’t marching all day long with those things on, I want to have feet left by the end of the day. Learned many lessons with 21 years in the modern Army, some of which I don’t have to repeat as a re-enactor to relearn. .......


......So when would you blouse your pants inside your pant legs. Well, when you felt you needed to. Would you do it on parade or guard, probably not (or not after the Corporal or Sergeant caught you anyway). Would you do it for a staged picture? Probably not, since you wanted to look your best. If the ticks or redbugs were bad, you bet. If your socks keep falling down, probably. You would do anything to keep your socks up, to include wrapping cord or string around them to keep them up. So when would you do it? When you needed to and it wasn’t absolutely forbidden.......

Dear Sir:

First, thank you for your service.

Second, while I've never served in the military, I have many friends and family who did. I've had the priviledge of hearing a lot of stories about the ingenuity of soldiers in the field when asked to do the impossible with tools and equipment that malfunction from the start, can't be reliably depended on, or were so poorly made that it's a waste to do anything with them besides throw them in the nearest ditch.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should also state that I'm completely obsessed with researching socks and period knit goods. I also reproduce them for sale and mend those that have seen hard service, but still have life in them. This is extremely valuable as I get to see where and how they fail in the field, further refining my critical evaluation of that particular manufactuer's yarn for future goods. I strive to provide a functional reproduction that will perform in the field the same way the 1860s socks performed.

That being said, I've also seen a lot of socks advertised as "government issue" which do not conform in important ways to the specs for these socks as issued by the Quartermaster's Department. I was extremely interested by several statements in your post:

1. You said that you could tell from the picture that the soldiers from Iowa with the bloused trousers weren't weaing gov. issue socks. How could you tell?

2. You mentioned that you saw a pair of reproduction socks on offer and knew from looking at them (with eyes informed by years in the military) that they would destroy your feet. What did you see that told you this?

3. You mentioned that it would make sense to you that a soldier would wrap string around socks to keep them up. Earlier in this thread there is a picture of the modern statue at Gettysburg showing a soldier with his socks tied to his leg. Personally, I don't doubt for a moment that it was done. But I would love some documentation from a primary source of it being done, if anyone has it or can point me towards a potential reference.

4. Finally, you mention your belief that the US Army wasn't charging soldiers for replacement socks by 1863. I've never heard that, and frankly very much doubt it. Has anyone got documentation either way on this one?

Thank you again for your observations on pictures with bloused socks, it's always valuable to hear the thoughts of one who knows how crucial they were (and remain) to our armed forces. I welcome any excuse to talk about footwear.

Sincerely,
Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Soceity
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

[GreencoatCross]

Re: Blousing of trousers

Has there been any conversation about tieing the bottom of the pant leg? From this account found in Confederate Veteran, he describes the practice.
"Just above the ankles each trouser leg is tied closely to the limb - a la Zouave - and beneath reaches of dirty socks disappear in a pair of badly used and curiously contorted shoes. (Source: Written by G.H. Baskett, Nashville, Tenn., published in the Confederate Veteran, Vol. I, No. 12, Nashville, Tenn., December 1893.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/typicalconfedsoldier.htm)

Steve Acker
http://civilwartangents.blogspot.com/

Steve, I've done that before at events when my socks were stretched out and slipping down into my shoes. I didn't have anything to tie them with but my shoe laces, so I used those and cut shorter, new laces from the top edge of my brogans. It worked like a charm; my socks stopped bothering me and I no longer had debris being kicked up under my trouser cuffs and into my shoes. I typically wear cotton socks so blousing my trousers doesn't work, mostly due to what I guess would be distension of the sock and slippage of the fibers...they just don't grip or have the same elasticity as wool socks.