Painting Knapsacks

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Painting Knapsacks

The quartermaster must have gone crazy trying to track all that gear, including knapsacks, that got flung to the side of the road during a tough march. I know that at Backwaters I was really tempted to do the same thing. ;) I have read that on a few occasions when a soldier saw a Mason symbol on an enemy, they spared them if they could.

Everyone went crazy with that. At the beginning of the war, the Report of Clothing, Camp and Garrison Equipage, was quarterly. In response to early war procurement scandals, Congress required it monthly, submitted to the Third Auditor of the Treasury instead of the QMG. QMG Meigs was sufficiently incensed that he required copies to his office.

As a result of all that, a report that originally was submitted by every company quarterly in two copies became submitted monthly in four -- a twelve-fold increase in paperwork. It could be one of the reasons it took the US army awhile to get into full swing.

Or not. All that accountability meant that someone paid when stuff got thrown away. A soldier at the time would have been as tempted as you to toss excess baggage, but they would have known that it was coming out of their pocket in the end -- at least in the Union army. As the Confederate dollar inflated, the cost to the rebel soldier of ditching government property would become less and less significant. By the beginning of 1864, for example, a Confederate dollar was less than a twelfth of a greenback.

So maybe the price of a Masonic symbol on the knapsack wouldn't have been so great after all -- if the soldier could afford the paint.

[Cyclesmith]

Re: Painting Knapsacks

Thats a good point, personally I never thought of a Knapsack as personal equipment... I carry personal items, rations and extra ammo in my haversack. I have always approached packing a knapsack with the frame of mind that I would not have it long... and may have to dump it if ordered. So I guess it seems rather superfluous to paint personal stuff on it... if one was interested in trying to have a bit of ownership of a knapsack I would image he would simply put his name on the inside... like the Kibbler knapsack as a case in point.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Painting Knapsacks

Thats a good point, personally I never thought of a Knapsack as personal equipment... I carry personal items, rations and extra ammo in my haversack. I have always approached packing a knapsack with the frame of mind that I would not have it long... and may have to dump it if ordered. So I guess it seems rather superfluous to paint personal stuff on it... if one was interested in trying to have a bit of ownership of a knapsack I would image he would simply put his name on the inside... like the Kibbler knapsack as a case in point.

Technically both the knapsack and the haversack (along with the canteen and shelter half) fall into the same category of "camp and garrison equipage." But I should probably have mentioned that even the army wasn't totally consistent in its treatment and labeling of these kinds of items. Although knapsacks and haversacks are treated as company property in annual general orders about cost, as well as the Regulations (which tell us exactly how to "decorate" them, BTW), and get listed on the register of cg&e in Kautz's "Company Clerk", they also appear on the printed blank for the Inventory of Effects of dead soldiers along with clothing.

I don't know why this is. It's not a typo. It may be a matter of practicality -- perhaps used haversacks and knapsacks weren't always in a condition to be reissued to just anyone, or were generally used to ship the other effects home in. Or maybe it was custom or taboo -- haversacks and knapsacks were worn on the body and came to be seen as like clothing. And yet canteens could be seen the same way, and they don't show on the Inventory. Just one more example of how the more I learn the more I discover I don't know.

[hiplainsyank]

Re: Painting Knapsacks

While reading this thread I kept recalling all the anecdotes where particularly along the Union line of march people reported all sorts of items being tossed by the soldiers. Soldiers also tended to toss items when in routed by the enemy as well. At least among Union soldiers it was common to toss stuff, and privates were only paid $13 a month. It seems Union troops were quite cavalier about their equipment.

While the regulations were supposed to charge them, it makes me wonder how often they were charged for tossing stuff. Does anyone have reports of this happening--and how often?

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Painting Knapsacks

While reading this thread I kept recalling all the anecdotes where particularly along the Union line of march people reported all sorts of items being tossed by the soldiers. Soldiers also tended to toss items when in routed by the enemy as well. At least among Union soldiers it was common to toss stuff, and privates were only paid $13 a month. It seems Union troops were quite cavalier about their equipment.

While the regulations were supposed to charge them, it makes me wonder how often they were charged for tossing stuff. Does anyone have reports of this happening--and how often?

As a general rule, soldiers weren't cavalier with their equipment and it's probably not accurate to say that it was "common to toss stuff." They did so under the strain of the march or battle. There's a pretty detailed, though slightly dated, discussion of the system of accountability here: http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...l-of-the-Clerk

The army updated the prices of clothing, camp and garrison equipage annually in general orders, which you can find on Google Books, along with Ordnance Memorandum No. 1, which gives the prices for arms and accouterments. Excerpts from both of these are in the document linked above. Confederate general orders are now also partially available on Google Books, and provide clothing costs for 1863 and 1864.

When equipment was lost it was noted on inspection and a charge made against the next payroll. If the soldier said it wasn't his fault, he might get to tell his story to a Board of Survey. If he'd been particularly egregious in his spoilage of equipment, he could be court martialed and have to pay an additional fine. The cost of lost clothing would come out of his allowance.

It's worth noting that $13 a month wasn't a negligible amount in the 1860s. Together with the monthly $3.50 clothing allowance and the commutation value of the ration, it added up to a bit more than a farm worker or laborer might get. Some states threw in payments to dependents and monthly bounty payments as well. There was also a Federal bounty that rose in value over the course of the war.

Stories of soldiers tossing stuff remind me that it's always good to look critically at period accounts to see what's actually going on. Both Billings and Grant (in his memoirs) mention a mass ditching of stuff at the opening of the Wilderness campaign -- Grant said it was "an improvidence I had never witnessed before." There are several things to note about this. First, the fact that Grant was shocked tells us that it wasn't common, at least in the west. Second, these could have been the heavy artillery regiments assigned from Washington, who had never campaigned in the field before, and who Billings specifically describes as abandoning excess baggage. Other units had already sent their extra clothing home or boxed it up and turned it over to the quartermaster. Third, a number of the men in this campaign had been newly enlisted, or reenlisted under the veteran volunteer program. In either case they would have just received the first installment on a $400 federal bounty and, in some cases, state and local bounties in excess of a thousand dollars. For once they could afford to throw things away. I think you would be hard put to find a similar extravagance on the march to the sea and through the Carolinas, Hunter's campaign in the Valley, or other occasions when the troops had trimmed down ahead of time

[roundshot]

Re: Painting Knapsacks

In some cases the Government went overboard on accountability as shown in the following article I did a while back for our unit's newsletter:



"Civil War enlisted men on both sides were responsible for the proper care and maintenance of arms, equipments, and munitions issued by their respective governments. The cost of items lost, damaged, or otherwise unaccounted for was to be deducted from the offending soldier’s monthly pay. In addition, this accountability was shared with the responsible commanding officer, as stated in Article #40 of the Articles of War: “Every captain of a troop or company is charged with the arms, accouterments, ammunition, clothing or other warlike stores belonging to the troop or company under his command.” In some instances this adherence to the regulations was taken to the extreme, as in the case of Lieutenant Michael Vreeland of the 4th Michigan Infantry.

In the bloody fighting in The Wheatfield on the second day’s battle at Gettysburg, the 4th Michigan was surrounded on three sides and lost its colonel and its colors in a vicious hand-to-hand melee. This action has been memorialized in modern artist Don Troiani’s vividly graphic painting “Fight For the Colors.” Also among the casualties was Lieutenant Vreeland of Company “I,” who suffered gunshot wounds to the left breast and right arm, and was clubbed in the head with a musket. Only timely intervention by a Confederate officer prevented him from being bayoneted to death. In addition, all 22 men of Vreeland’s company were either killed wounded, or captured.

Vreeland fortunately survived his wounds after a lengthy hospitalization, but there his further troubles began. Because of his infirmities, Vreeland was physically unable to complete the appropriate Form 1, listing quarterly ordinance and property returns for his company. Regulations required these reports to be filed “within twenty days after the quarter.” Inasmuch as all of his men were casualties, Vreeland was charged $370 for the cost of his men’s lost equipment! It was deducted from his future pay. In his defense, Vreeland later sought to explain: ' I certify on honor that on the 2nd day of July 1863 at Gettysburg Pa. The stores enumerated below were lost under the following circumstance; The right wing of the regiment to which my company belonged was surrounded by the enemy; of my company five killed, ten wounded, and the remainder taken prisoners. The arms and accouterments carried by these men were left on the field and not recovered.'

The gallant Michel Vreeland died in 1876. Until his dying day he sought to recover the $370 from the U. S. government. His wife maintained the effort until 1900. They were unsuccessful. In more ways than one, Lieutenant Vreeland paid a heavy price in the service of his country."

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Painting Knapsacks

Interesting -- Vreeland's certification follows the format given by Kautz in The Company Clerk, which in turn copies it from Ordnance Memorandum 1 ("Instructions for Making Quarterly Returns of Ordnance and Ordnance Stores"). Such a certification was an early 1863 simplification of the prewar documentation requirements and would seem to have been implemented with just such a case in mind. This just shows us that not only did troops in the field sometimes ignore regulations, but sometimes the bureaucracy itself wasn't up to following them. Thanks very much for sharing that!

[DBovia]

Re: Painting Knapsacks

In regard to marking equipment with the Masonic square and compass. How about an entire ship? The USS Baron DeKalb had this Masonic symbol suspended between its smokestacks. (Photo from the Nov/Dec "Civil War Times")

Where's the picture? As a Master Mason and Retired Navy I'd love to see it.
If you can't post it, could you email it?
dbovia@aol.com

thanks,
Don