Announcement

**Mark Choate** · 11-29-2011, 03:41 PM

Re: Amazing inspection report of a Trans-Mississippi Cavalry brigade

Will,

That truly is astounding as it lists the men, their status, how many had what, etc.

I hear many a "sacred cow" of reenacting being slaughtered in the distance, ha.

thanks,
Mark

**Forrestcavalryman** · 11-29-2011, 03:44 PM

Re: Amazing inspection report of a Trans-Mississippi Cavalry brigade

Wow! 1,025 men with canteens and 158 men with them? That's crazy!

**Ken Knopp** · 11-29-2011, 07:48 PM

Re: Amazing inspection report of a Trans-Mississippi Cavalry brigade

The lack of canteens and haversacks is a question we here have often pondered but, .....

OK, I can understand the " without serviceable" or "with one" or "with two" of this or that in regards to some items but, immediatley under it says....men with "no" socks, no shirts and no drawers? Ok, .....I'll even accept that too, I can even see men in the period without socks and drawers but without shirts? Particularly since they are listing "overcoats" and "undercoats" - which suggests a cold time of year? Hmmm, begs alot of questions.
So, perhaps the oft-heard refrain of "the men were nearly naked" rings more true than we imagine. Lots to consider here.

PS: Look at Col Monroe's regiment, the number of men absent sick and present sick. Lots of sick men- half the regiment!

Ken R Knopp

**Hank Trent** · 11-29-2011, 08:22 PM

Re: Amazing inspection report of a Trans-Mississippi Cavalry brigade

I'm curious why some items are listed as "with serviceable" or "without serviceable," while others are listed as "with" or "no." What made them choose such categories?

In other words, to continue what Ken Knopp said, is a man with "no shirt" the same as a man "without serviceable undercoat"--in otherwise, he has none at all? Or is the list implying that every man had at least a tattered undercoat, while some lacked a shirt completely? Why is there a category for "no shirt" but not for "no undercoat" or "no hat"?

I can see why it might be useful to combine people who had unserviceable items and people who had completely lost their items, because when it came time to requisition more, both would need a new one. It just seems odd that there are two different terminologies, "without serviceable" and "no," which may or may not mean the same thing.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

**ButtermilkRanger** · 11-30-2011, 09:14 AM

Re: Amazing inspection report of a Trans-Mississippi Cavalry brigade

This is complete and utter speculation, but I'd like to weigh in on the "no shirt" theory. Several years ago I spent quite a bit of time pouring over every photograph and diary of Trans-Mississippi cavalrymen I could find. One thing that I found interesting was the number of overshirts still prevelant in the commands even through the end of the war. Perhaps the "no shirt" report indicates that the individual was wearing his overshirt as a "shirt", meaning that he either had no undershirt or vice-versa. It just doesn't seem logical to me that these guys were running around sans shirt. But again, it's utter speculation on my part. I do know for a fact that I'm enjoying these ORs more than any topic that's been posted on this forum in a number of years. This is the kind of research and discussion that I missed so much in the past. Keep them coming. Especially the reports on the TMD.

**volcav** · 12-01-2011, 10:12 AM

Re: Amazing inspection report of a Trans-Mississippi Cavalry brigade

I was surprised to see how many men had two of some items. I've recently been reading Hard Tack and Coffee and while that is a book about Union Soldiers, these reports seem to bear out the reality of the assertion made in the book that some men simply took better care of their uniforms and equipment than others, regardless of which Army they were in.

Announcement

Announcement

Amazing inspection report of a Trans-Mississippi Cavalry brigade

Amazing inspection report of a Trans-Mississippi Cavalry brigade

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment