Pants

[Pappy1963]

I have a question...When I have seen reenactments and movies, sometimes Federal soldiers in the Civil War had their pants tucked into there socks. I think the obvious reason for this is so they will not get dirty, but is there another reason? I am starting my first reenacting season in March 2004, so call me ignorant (for lack of a better word)



Pappy

Mr. Papieve, Please sign your full name to every post.- Justin Runyon, Moderator

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Re: Pants

It's called blousing...sometimes this was done to prevent rocks from getting down in your socks and boots...It is period, but sometimes may be overdone. Anyone else have feedback on it?

Paul B. Boulden Jr.

RAH VA MIL '04

[vote4jakub]

Re: Pants

The blousing thing seems to be very popular in fatigue duties around camp, as noted in period photos, sketches, paintings, etc. as well as being practical on the march, but I'm sure your Sarge would've chewed you out for it while formed up for role-call or inspection... the more formal photos bear me out I think. Anyway go through some books with an eye for it and make up your own mind; always a good plan! Scott

Scott, you need to sign your full name to all posts. - Mike Chapman

[theknapsack]

Re: Pants

Welcome to the hobby, Pappy! This is called blousing. The soldiers would not really do that to keep them from being dirty, that was more or less inevitable. Depending where the soldiers were, say you are sleeping somewhere in texas or Louisiana (or where there are snakes), you might want to do that to keep snakes out of your trowsers! I've used it to keep cold air from coming up my trowsers also. It really is a matter of your own opinion. When can you see it in photos? Have you ever seen it? Things like that. There are probably many other reasons for what soldiers did, but always make sure you can:
1. Document it (photos, sketches, and writings of soldiers in the field soldiers probably would not do this in a carte de visit. Carte de Visits can be very showing also but not for a field used practicality)
2. Once you have proved something with photos and such, experiment with it. Does it work for you? Is there any practical reasoning for you to do this?
I am also fairly new (going into 2nd year) so anyone please correct me if I am wrong.
Shouldn't this be in the Camp of Instruction?

[SGulley]

Re: Pants

I agree that it may be overdone. A better idea if you don't want bugs and critters and what not crawling up your legs would be to tuck your underdrawers into your socks.

[RyanBWeddle]

Re: Pants

The practice of tucking your trowsers into your socks was done. Some say to keep your socks up! It is well documented in period sketches and some photos...
Here is a great example:

http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/cwpb/00200/00260v.jpg

And attached is a famous sketch by Allen C. Redwood which appears in "At the Second Manassas with Jackson's "Foot-Cavalry".

HOWEVER, in reenacting as a whole, many believe that it is done too often, therefore many 'authentic' reenactors don't do it as a backlash/balancing to that fact.

NOTE ON THE TERM:
My issue with the term "Blousing" is that I have never seen it in a period reference. The only time I have ever seen 'blousing' referred to in a military connotation is in WWII w/paratroopers and more widespread in Vietnam regulations on blousing fatigue pants into combat boots....

I have yet to come across a wartime/civilian period reference to "Blousing / bloused". If someone has a period account I would love to see/hear it, otherwise I don't think the practice had a name at the time.

[ScottMcKay]

Re: Pants

Ryan,

Thanks for backing up your statement with a link to an image to support your statement. All too often, folks make statements in their posts without supportive documentation, and say such & such was common.

In your contribution, you have proven it to have been a practice; and if that image follows the thinking, the fact that only one of of the four men that image subscribed to the practice. That in itself, is not an indicator, but it does raise the question.

On an aside, thanks for your recent assists in helping the moderation. I wish all members would do as such.

[DonSmithnotTMD]

Re: Pants

I'm a little lost on that image. For some reason, it's hard for me to see some stuff even after I printed it.

Is the fellow sitting down wearing leggings? (looks like it to me). If so I guess that the one standing across from him has his pants rolled up.

Don Smith

[rogue]

Re: Pants cuffs

Cannot back this up with documentation, but I found while on the field of pretent battle I could run better with the pants tucked into the top o' the socks. When I ran I always had a tendency to catch the heel on one shoe on the cuff of the pants leg of the other foot, and bloucing lessened this even though the 33WI was against blousing as a matter of SOP.
Steve Sullivan

[RyanBWeddle]

Re: Pants

Here you go Don, sure enough those are tucked in socks.

There are a couple other images of this, I just can't place them right this instant.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Pants

Hallo Kameraden!

Indeed...

There is a difference between "blousing" and "tucking" the bottom of one's trousers into one's socks.... Modern military "blousing" involves catching the bottom of one's pants midcalf or so, and holding it in place (I used little elasctic gizmo's) while the pant leg was allowed to "ballon" down past it and blouse above the boot.
"Tucking" one's CW trousers/trowsers into the top of non-elastic period socks generally creates a more "streamlined" or "fitted to the leg" look.
(Of course, with generic Sutlers' Row trousers, fitted to modern sizes, the legs (and butt) are often snug and streamlined anyways... ;-) )

In my experience(s), on the march, I have found that exposing the tops of my shoes by tucking my trousers into my socks, FACILITATED things like pebbles and sticks falling into my shoes.
When in "Tick Country," the ticks simply crawl up higher looking for entry points such as the neck, or into the hair or beard.
And, when in "Chigger Country," they are small enough to go between the weave of trousers and drawers anyways... ;-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[bonniegreenflag]

Re: Pants

To me, although documenation is very valuble, doing something to make you more comfortable isnt bad, unless its just plain stupid. Im a new prgrosseive, so feel free to yell at me!

Andrew, first sign all of your posts with your full name. Second, your post breaks our rule of "No farbism" on this forum. - Mike Chapman