Where to Wear Your Haversack & Canteen?

[davidf]

Union Army Issue Eating Utensils

Ever since I could not really find any good threads on the subject on the forums here, what sources are there on Union army issue eating utensils? All I know so far is what I have been told by the guy who runs the "Fields of Glory" shop in Gettysburg. Apparently, many manufacturers of utensils were employed by the Union army to make utensils, so that resulted in numerous forms of utensils and no standard forms. Any advice on how to further pursue research and where to buy reproductions of a set that would have been used during the war? I am trying to get away from using equipment that is over represented, like the fork-spoon-knife combination, and to get other pieces of equipment that were commonly used as well.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Re: Union Army Issue Eating Utensils

My research more or less confirms what your guy said - there was no real standard military issue with so many suppliers. The government procured alot of that locally, especially near forts and garrisons, as it was considered garrison equipage and kept with the mess equipments such as plates and cups. Those that were carried in the field by the soldier were more often than not personal equipment self-procured, with the wealth of information on period sutlers showing many lists of eating utensils for sale. Your best bet today is to obtain antique utensils, as they are still commonly found at reasonable prices, often times whole matching sets sold together. I have found that the vast majority of repro utensils are poor at best, with low quality plated metal and poor wood on the handles.

[davidf]

Re: Union Army Issue Eating Utensils

Yes, but how to know that the set you find is accurate to the period?

[Bummer]

Re: Union Army Issue Eating Utensils

I would try to study dug relics where you can--a good relic shop or a larger show--and learn what is most often recovered from Civil War sites, of course there might be some post war inclusions, but you will generally see them as atypical. After looking at original stuff a bit you will see the general trend and be able to pick up some similiar items at most any good antique dealer that will fit right it...and if it is like the dug stuff you will know it is right.

You say that you haven't that much time and that you need the stuff sooner than that? Well to that I would say that if one has the interest in this nut hobby these are the sorts of observances and things that should have been going on for some time now. (And no, I am not speaking to you specificly, but just making a general statement to everyone.)

[Frenchie]

Re: Union Army Issue Eating Utensils

I've been told by a friend who spoke as a youngster with a Union veteran that one way the old boys cut down on encumbrance was to sharpen the edge of the spoon bowl to turn it into a makeshift knife. They tossed away the fork and knife and carried the spoon only, often in a pocket. The old vet also said they tossed their canteens and just filled their cups with water at every convenient stream.

[Gallo de Cielo]

Re: Union Army Issue Eating Utensils

I wouldn't want to challenge what a veteran passed along but I would counter that the weight and/or encumberance of a fork and knife would hardly add much heft to one's load and that a canteen would be the one item a lad would be least likely to chunk aside. The cup theory just doesn't hold up on any sort of a distance march. And if he didn't drink it all down, did he hold a cup in one hand and his rifle in the other? A few holes in that claim but perhaps the old boy did it that way. The numbers of canteens seen in original images of men in the field is, to me at least, strong evidence that they had 'em and used 'em.

I will concur that a spoon is often the best of the three, if one had to pick. A spoon coupled with a pocket (or barlow) knife is a double-threat that can't be beat- something to cut/prong with and something to dip/stir/flip with.

My two cents,

[Hank Trent]

Re: Union Army Issue Eating Utensils

The only comment I can make on using a cup instead of a canteen, was that I've found it to be typical for civilians camping in the period, so it must have worked. The cup was usually carried on the belt. For a camper or hunter, it's easier to document a lone tin cup, in the east at least, than a canteen.

I always figured that the necessity of soldiers carrying canteens was due to needing them to stay in ranks and not having them fall out each time they got thirsty, and sometimes needing them to stay in a location without water such as on a battlefield, while civilians could wander to the nearest creek whenever they chose. But falling back on the use of cups alone would be tending toward their civilian roots.

Examples:

1856 article "Going to Mount Katahdin," the men on a camping trip to Maine wore "various combinations of blue and red shirts and frocks, with black belts for knives and cups." No mention of canteens.

1859 Jottings of a Year's Sojourn in the South: "A stout, bull-headed boatman, dressed in a hunting shirt, but bare-footed... took a tin cup which hung from his belt..."

A detailed list here of what to take into the wilderness includes a tin cup, but no canteen: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...e;seq=00000349
"...instead of suspenders the pantaloons are kept up by a broad belt, on which the tin-cup may be strung."

More examples and full citations on request.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[WoodenNutmeg]

Re: Union Army Issue Eating Utensils

These appeared in Echoes of Glory and are universally Federal by commission.

[Charles Heath]

Re: Union Army Issue Eating Utensils

David,

Just for fun, take the time to read a section from our unit handbook entitled: "Mess Furniture in the Army of the Potomac," by life member John Tobey. The applicable material is located on pages 167 through 170.

[Jimmayo]

Re: Union Army Issue Eating Utensils

I would try to study dug relics where you can--a good relic shop or a larger show--and learn what is most often recovered from Civil War sites.

Spoons are the most common item of table ware that I have recovered. Table knives are seldom dug when compared to the number of pocket knives recovered. Forks are dug more infrequently than spoons or else they deterioate to the point of being a rust stain and cannot be recognized. I have even dug one of the combination knife, spoon and fork combination tools in a CS trench. Must have stolen it from a Yankee. Some of the spoons are on this page.

http://www.angelfire.com/ma4/j_mayo/uscanteen.html

[davidf]

Re: Union Army Issue Eating Utensils

David,

Just for fun, take the time to read a section from our unit handbook entitled: "Mess Furniture in the Army of the Potomac," by life member John Tobey. The applicable material is located on pages 167 through 170.

Which book is that? If you mean the one the Columbia Rifles is putting out, don't worry, I have that one on order already for Christmas.

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Union Army Issue Eating Utensils

I hesitate to chime in here as infantry particularly Federal, is not my area of interest but I thought I might add some thoughts to ponder. My research of haversacks and canteens for Confederate cavalry strongly suggest that many cavalrymen routinely did not carry them....by choice! I would not suggest that Federal infantry can be directly compared to CS cavalry but some of the points made below are maybe worth considering in this discussion.
I offer the following excerpt that was posted some time before the infamous crash (and subsequently lost I beleive) but maybe worth reposting again now. (please excuse the length) .............

WESTERN CAVALRY (HAVERSACKS & CANTEENS)

ISSUE: Haversacks and canteens among western cavalrymen. As a student of Confederate cavalry, in my research of primary records I have noticed a very glaring pattern in the surviving Confederate cavalry Inspection Reports pointing to a lack of haversacks and canteens among western cavalrymen. It is also found to some lessor degree in eastern (ANV) cavalrymen but that is a topic for another time. I bring this issue to light to illustrate and offer for discussion another reenactor ““disconnect”” or historical mis-understanding, that is.... carrying too much or the wrong gear. In specific, the common, everyday use and/or necessity, of the haversack and canteen.

Author’’s Notes; This is not a scientific nor complete purview of all the available information. I have chosen four different time periods and inspection reports to highlight the ““haversack and canteen issue””. These were chosen because each report encompasses a very significant and/or large portion of the primary western cavalry in the field at three important time periods and, these are some of the most complete reports available.

SOURCES: The following research information regarding the supply of haversacks and canteens is found in the AIG Ordnance Inspection Reports detailing the arms and equipment for various western cavalry commands. They can be found at the Nat'l Archives, WAR DEPT. COLLECTION OF CONFEDERATE RECORDS, R.G. 109, RGM 935, Various Rolls.

1.
Dec 1st, 1863 Army of the West Cavalry. Reports taken sometime in late November 1863.
Setting; At the time this report was taken the Army of the West cavalry had not yet been consolidated under Stephen D Lee and N.B. Forrest. This was very soon to happen in early 1864. Forrest had just been transferred west from the A.O.T. and had arrived in mid- November with about 300 men including artillery. Other cavalry in the Army of the West was widely scattered in Mississippi and Alabama under various independent commanders and duly noted.

Cmdr. Effective Men (approx.), # Haversacks, % , # Canteens/straps, %
Forrest: 2,500 1,500 60% 1,759 70%
Richardson NOT LISTED
Ross 900 700 78% 360 40%
Cosby 529 518
Adams 1,000 280 28% 609 61%
Greer 555 555 100% 555 100% (possibly erroneous numbers)
Chalmers 2,200 988 45% 286 13%
Ferguson 1,900 899 47% 926 49%
Cockrell 1,370 1,119 81% 878 60%

**Effective men are estimations based upon various sources.

2.
May 26, 1864: Forrest’’s Cavalry in North Mississippi.
Setting: This report was taken approx two weeks prior to the battle of Brice’’s Crossroads and is very detailed. Forrest had recently returned from his west Tennessee Raids including battles of Ft Pillow, Jackson Tenn, etc and large engagements against Sooy Smith at Okalona, Miss., etc. In these endeavors he had gathered a large number of conscript men, horses, captured weapons, equipment and supplies. Forrest was near his peak in number of men and horses but not in arms and equipment (as will be seen). Soon after this report, several hundred men were taken from him and returned to other infantry and cavalry commands (w/o their arms and equips) and a portion of his command was detached elsewhere. Since Dec. 1863, Forrest had made a number of requisitions on the Ord. Dept for arms and equipment. It is certain he was sent from various arsenals some 1,350 imported pistols (I believe Lafoucheaux ) from Mobile (Jan. 64); some ““accoutrements”” from Richmond (Jan. 64) and other arms (Austrian .54); In mid-May 1864 he was sent another 3,000 stands of arms and some accoutrements (more Austrian’s from Demopolis). About May Forrest reports that one of his brigades (Gholston’’s) is ““green and imperfectly armed””. Many of the requisitions made at this time (in May 1864) apparently went to fit up that brigade.
*Sources for the above include the OR’’s and author’’s copies of original correspondence and requisitions from various state and the National Archives.

Cmdr., Effective Men, # Haversacks, % , # Canteens/straps, %
Chalmer’’s Div 4,067 1,842 45% 1,437 40%
Buford’’s Civ. 3,615 1,503 42% 1,572 43%
Gholston’’s 1,213 245 20% 257 21%


3.
July 3rd, 1864 (Verona, Miss): 2nd Brigade, Chalmer’’s Division, Forrest’’s Cavalry. Another very detailed report.
In order to illustrate my point I offer an interesting comparison. I note that the 2nd Brigade of Chalmer’’s Division was inspected on the date above and notes the following numbers:

Effective Men, # Haversacks, %, # Canteens/straps, %
2,392 1,359 56.8% 1,898 79%
*1st Brigade (Neely’’s) detached and not included.

Now, Compare the percentages of Chalmers’’ May report to the July report. Keep in mind that at the Battle of Brice’’s Crossroads some two weeks prior Forrest’’s men captured 17 cannon, 250 wagons, 3,000 stands of arms, killed and wounded some 2,000 men and captured another 2,000 men. Not noted in Forrest’’s battle report but obvious would be the assumption of the many, many haversacks and canteens that were part of these captures. Combine this with the many more captures of these articles in the early 1864 engagements at Ft Pillow, Okalona, Jackson and Trenton, Tenn, Kentucky and, add in Forrest’’s many requisitions from Confederate authorities from January through June of 1864. As a result, one should be able to reasonably assume with confidence that haversacks and canteens would have plentiful and NOT LIKELY an item in short supply in Forrest’’s command. RIGHT? Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that despite all of the above one still finds these items in short numbers each and every report especially comparing %'s. In particular, take a look at Chalmer’’s July inspection reports immediately "after" Brice's Crossroads. So, WHY????

4.
July 31st, 64 Wheeler’’s Cavalry. From Wheeler’’s ““Consolidated Monthly Ordnance Report”” By Capt S.P. Kerr. Very detailed. Although dated July 31st it is likely this was taken earlier in July or possibly even in June sometime prior to the heavy fighting around Atlanta when Wheeler was very active but then, maybe not. Again, shortages are noted.

Effective Men, # Haversacks, % ,# Canteens/straps, %
6,734 (in field on hand) 3,228 47.9% 4,120 61%



SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS: For certain, there does not appear to be a lot of canteens and haversacks in the western cavalry commands (at least not on paper). I find this very interesting and although I can speculate I can offer no conclusive reasons why haversacks and canteens are not found in greater numbers.

Questions to ponder:
Can we assume then haversacks and canteens were in short supply? With so many reports taken at different times by different inspection officers logic would tell us NO. At least not more consistently than any other item noted.

Can we assume an anomaly in the Inspection Reports? Are we talking about inadequate or inconsistent inspection Reports? Doubtful, too many.
These are but a few of many in the surviving record.

Can we say that the Inspection officers only noted "government issue" items? Possibly, but then would they not apply the same logic to private shot guns, saddles, bridles, clothing, shoes, etc.? Again, with so many inspection reports (I have dozens from all over the Confederacy) I have never seen any “official” ruling on this subject nor consistency in reporting to substantiate that theory.

Can we assume plentiful alternatives to these items? Maybe, but what kinds? Why are these not noted anywhere in the reports, in the Inspector’’s ““remarks”” or other contemporary records?

Rather, I believe (and this is my humble opinion....) the lack of haversacks and canteens are due to ““choice”” by many of the west’’s (and east’’s) cavalrymen to simply NOT carry these articles. I cannot explain why so many would choose NOT to carry a seemingly important item like a haversack or canteen (remember it was a different era) but maybe they did. For example, traveling light, other alternatives and the "hassle factor" are excellent considerations.
Regarding the haversack, maybe some troopers just did not want to fool with them. It is clear from contemporary accounts some of Forrest' men would often eat their "3 days cooked rations" BEFORE they marched! Later, I suppose they reilied on being able to "forage" when hungry. Or, maybe they simply rolled their extra food and belongings up in the blanket roll, tote sack, valise (if they were lucky to have one but again not often noted in the reports) or saddles bags (a rare item for a trooper) and their trouser’’s pockets.

What about canteens? Water is an absolute necessity! What do you think about this...Maybe since the cavalry routinely watered their horses out of necessity, could it be that the lazy or "devil may care" trooper simply took his water at the same time as his horse (carrying a tin cup) and/or when he could at a roadside well, and simply felt that was enough?
---------------------------------
Anyway, this may not relate to infantry but it does present an interesting point to ponder.

Ken R Knopp

PS: I have also read accounts about troopers sharing canteens among his ““mess”” like other "camp" items. Another funny one told about a infantryman that would routinely give away any canteen he found to his "pards" under the condition that he could get a drink when he wanted. After giving away several canteens in this manner it was nothing for this lazy fella to stay thoroughly hydrated by moving among his many pards.

Ken R KNopp

[Charles Heath]

Re: Union Army Issue Eating Utensils

Which book is that? If you mean the one the Columbia Rifles is putting out, don't worry, I have that one on order already for Christmas.

Yes, the 2nd Edition. At one of our annual COIs at Fort Ontario, John gave a class on utensils using originals and his documention from the Elmira training camps. This was a darn fine class, and a portion of the information (with photos) is included with the article in the newer version. In the 1st Edition, Kevin O'Beirne's article, "The Campaigner's Instruments of Culinary Art: Mess Furniture of the Federal Civil War Soldier" also covers similiar ground.

I understand only about 50 copies remain, so light a fire under Santa's third point of contact.