"Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

[flattop32355]

Re: "Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

Is it possible that there were rules for civilian gentlemen and military officers not in the field which were more, shall we say, rigid than what the common folk/soldiers were required to meet?

Most (all?) etiquette books seem to be written with the idea of meeting the standards of the "upper class", who wished to remain aloof of the working classes and below, rather than showing a more common standard.

Within the military, today as well as the CW, regulations for such things as dress and deportment were relaxed in a war zone compared to either peacetime or rear areas. So I see no contradiction should both practices be appropriate within their own zones of activity/engagement.

[ThehosGendar]

Re: "Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

She's pretty cool with things, too.

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

Re: "Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

Is it possible that there were rules for civilian gentlemen and military officers not in the field which were more, shall we say, rigid than what the common folk/soldiers were required to meet?

Most (all?) etiquette books seem to be written with the idea of meeting the standards of the "upper class", who wished to remain aloof of the working classes and below, rather than showing a more common standard.

Think of it this way...how many 'upper class' professions today necessitate the removal of outer garments while in public? How many lawyers strip down to a t-shirt in the courtroom?

Yet how surprised are we when a construction worker shows up in a tank top?

In the same vein, a lawyer in his office might take off his coat or loosen his tie today, but his 'on duty' uniform requires he fix those things.

The same can be applied to the 19th century and its professions. People observe etiquette where etiquette is required, sure, but that doesn't mean necessarily that it's a universal rule for everyone at all times. The construction worker in his tank top today and the laborer with his sleeves rolled up in 1861 are both appropriate for their times, places, and occupations.

[Pvt Peck]

Re: "Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

This is an excellent post on an old & long standing re-enactorism that I was once guilty of foisting on soldiers as a First Sgt. I would suggest that anyone called to task for not having his top button done up politly ask the officer/nco to produce the regulation or general order stating that said button must be done up when not on "duty" or pulling fatigue. Another excellent point I'm pleased to see people address is the modern impression that all Victorians were prim and proper, following a strict code of manners 24/7. These were real pragmatic people, a great number of whom probably would shock us with very corse manners and behaviours! Its good to see so much photographic evidence put forward too as to men in shirtsleeves etc.. and in the company of females.

Ted Parrott
"HUMBUG"

[PogueMahone]

Re: "Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!



Never say never. Here's an image recently discussed on the Hard Case forum. While on a fatigue detail, every man is wearing his sack and all have at least the top button buttoned.

(Photo identified as LC-B8171-3503.) Thanks to Stan Whitehorn for sharing it on the HCB.

[jpbab]

Re: "Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

I don't see a thing wrong with your "top" telling you to "button up." That's HIS way and your supposed to follow orders. He's kind of a hard ass guy it seems. But that's his way.

I've had REAL 1sg's tell me to remove my nomex gloves because they weren't issue and use the issued black leather gloves. Other 1sg's didn't care if I wore a nomex jacket. (Armor)

It all depends on who's in charge and what THEY want to do.

At my first reenactment I wore braces exposed, jacket top buttoned, any way I wanted and no one said a thing.

This is really just between you and your first sargeant.

[AZReenactor]

Re: "Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

I don't see a thing wrong with your "top" telling you to "button up." That's HIS way and your supposed to follow orders. He's kind of a hard ass guy it seems. But that's his way.
...
It all depends on who's in charge and what THEY want to do.
...
This is really just between you and your first sargeant.

Jeffery,
You'r correct to a point. The problem though is that this 1st Sargent was not acting in a period context and saying do what he says because he is sargeant. Rather he was acting as a reenactor propogating reenactorisms by suggesting that "wearing your braces in public was considered like wearing your underwear in public today" and telling recruits to button just the top collar button.

And Joe, as for the fatigue detail with buttons buttoned, maybe they were just cold ;-)

[Cleaveland]

Re: "Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

thats a great image, but the coats might be buttoned because south ga is cold in dec. Fort Mcallister was captured in december and the picture shows a detail of men emtying a magizine shortly there after.

john

[Watchdog]

Re: "Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

This bit of misinformation comes from mis-interpretation of the US Army uniform regulations. In regard to the dress coat (nine-button), there is a statement in the regulations to the effect that the dress coat must be "hooked at the top." This refers to the hook and eye attachments at the collar. Naturally, while on duty a soldier was to have all buttons (of any coat) fastened (on fatigue duty it would depend on the job, weather and the judgment of the person in charge).

While off duty, while in camp, on post or anywhere else, there is no requirement that all, none or any amount of buttons should be fastened. The civilian norm (or fashion) at the time (1850-1875) required or suggected many kinds of button arrangements. One would expoect that a soldier would be prooud enough of his appearnce to look presentable--buttons buttoned or not--and perhaps follow civilian fashion trends.

In regard to showing your underwear--in this case a shirt--this is another mis-interpretation. By the middle of the nineteenth-century ordinary shirts were no longer considered underwear. This can be seen in photographs and by the fact that shirts were no longer being made with tails long enough to serve the purpose of underwear. The fact that many shirts seen in photographs have designs is another indication that they were made to be seen.

[styler]

Re: "Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

I would suggest that anyone called to task for not having his top button done up politly ask the officer/nco to produce the regulation or general order stating that said button must be done up when not on "duty" or pulling fatigue.

Or you could take a note from several courts martial and profanely challenge his authority. "S--k my a--" comes to mind right away, coupled with some personal epithets. You may end up riding a wooden horse or a log, but it's all in the name of authenticity and an interesting learning experience for your comrades.

[billwatson]

Re: "Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

I get the feeling we may have drifted away from the key thing in a few cases, not necessarily the most recent posts.

As Bill Christen says, there are no requirements for buttons and such when you are off duty.

And when you are on duty, all the buttons are supposed to be buttoned and if you are wearing a dress coat or some other jacket that has a metal hook at the collar, you must also engage the hook at the collar.

[Andrew Keehan]

Re: "Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

I've heard this argument before and it always brings to mind a favorite image of mine. It's of officers and men of the 69th NYSM at Camp Corcoran before Bull Run. Men in shirt sleeves sit in the foreground in the company of officers, ladies, and a priest plying his trade. Obviously such restrictions did not apply in this case. Besides, do as they did, not as they say they did.

[billwatson]

Re: "Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

Yes, let me qualify what I said: The regulations call for all the buttons to be buttoned. And the hook to be hooked. Not just the top button. What people actually did is up for grabs.

As several have noted, what exasperates me is the admonition to just button the top button; it's based on a misread.

[sauguszouave]

Re: "Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

Folks,

I've got a diary from a corporal in the 8th MVM that lists days that the colonel allowed the men to fall in for retreat parade in shirt sleeves because of the July heat outside of Baltimore in 1861. Dress parades were also occasionally skipped because of bad weather.

I've always interpreted the Regulations to mean that officers and men when on duty, or in public, where to be properly uniformed including having all buttons buttoned and all hooks fastened. I think it is a misreading of this to think that it only applies to the top button.

The definition of appropriate dress was at the discretion of the post, garrison, or camp commander. The trick for the living historian is to find out what that was for the unit/location he is portraying.

My favorite court martial quote was from a private in the Co D, 22nd MVI who told his first sergeant: "I have seen the day when I can kick your arse."

Regards,

Paul Kenworthy

[billmatt04]

Re: "Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

This is how I think of it. There are rules of social acceptability today as there were in the mid-nineteenth century, but we do not always adhere to them. For example, going to the store in a white undershirt or "wife-beater" is not uncommon, though it is not always attractive and surely wouldn't be considered the most socially acceptable form of dress. Doesn't it stand to reason that our ancestors were much the same? Just look at the images posted on this thread - they only serve to reinforce this assumption.

It was very common for a man to wear only his shirtsleves when working, even in the company of women. Granted, when sprucing himself up for a social event it would be more likely that a man would don a vest and coat, but when working and around friends and family it would only stand to reason that his sense of fashion would be considerably relaxed.

I believe that we often neglect the human element in our living history and reenacting endeavors. People would modify their dress to suit their personal style, not all of their hats would be pristine (many were very floppy), etc. This is just my two cents, but I believe it is agreement with the consensus here. Thanks for the very interesting discussion.

Best,