The novelty of shoes?

[Doughboy]

Posts moved from the brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties discussion for being off topic.

Not an answer but it seems to me a lot of trouble to go through for something that was not expected to last that long. The cost would have to come out of a soldiers pocket and I can imagine there were millions of other necessities he would rather have. Probably a good number in the CS ranks would never have worn shoes at all before the war so eyelets would hardly have been an issue.
Christopher Wilson

I have been looking around on here and other referebces, but I have come up a little short. I am inquiring about any research that shows that brass eyelets were installed on enlisted Mens Jefferson Booties, either issued or added later. I contatced Bob Serio and this was his response.

"Pete, there were hand eyelet setters and brass eyelets available prior to the Civil War. If you have the correct size setter and the correct size eyelets it is a simple job. I have heard of some excavated Jefferson bootees having eyelets but I HAVE NOT SEEN THEM. Could eyelets been added? Yes. A small eyelet is best, something with a interior diameter hole about 1/8 inch. Ciao, Robert"

Does anyone have any other info? I know they existed then. I know that Civilian shoes and officer shoes sometimes had them. I was considering adding them to mine and I wanted some more research to support it. I have used the search threads and did some searches. If this has been discussed, Mods feel free to remove or attach associated thread. Thanks for any info:)

[ElizabethClark]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Mr Wilson, will you please share your source for a few things in your statement?

1: Have you found that soldiers had an option between multiple types of shoe styles and eyelet styles, and chose one over the other?

2: Please back up your statement that "probably a good number of CS ranks would never have worn shoes at all before the war"--that really needs back-up documentation to stand on the AC Forum.

[PogueMahone]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Probably a good number in the CS ranks would never have worn shoes at all before the war so eyelets would hardly have been an issue.

This may be the most myth-driven ignorant statement I've seen on the AC!

[Hank Trent]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

2: Please back up your statement that "probably a good number of CS ranks would never have worn shoes at all before the war"--that really needs back-up documentation to stand on the AC Forum.

Related thread: http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...males+barefoot

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[PogueMahone]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Related thread: http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...males+barefoot

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

Big difference between "never" and "sometimes". "Sometimes" would be an accurate statement. Mr. Wilson said:

would never have worn shoes at all before the war

[Doughboy]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Joe,
I also said "probably", but then why quibble when it is so much easier to call something ignorant.
CW

[Hank Trent]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Big difference between "never" and "sometimes". "Sometimes" would be an accurate statement.

Yep. I'm seriously interested in examples of southern white males who never wore shoes, because there was a distinct lack of examples in that thread, leading me to believe it was very rare. If "probably a good number in the CS ranks would never have worn shoes" I'm seriously interested in what data is used to come to that conclusion.

Hank Trent
(who repeatedly used a porta potty barefoot last weekend--eww eww eww! :D )
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Doughboy]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

So whether poor southern farmboys always wore shoes (doubtful) sometimes wore shoes (church or weddings probable) or never wore shoes (clearly doubtful if one is to be taken to task for every nuance so I apologize to Mr Smotherman and Ms Clark) the question is would a soldier spend his hard earned coins on some eyelets for his shoes?
I am betting no. I would love to see the statistics on this just as I would love to see Mr. Smotherman's stats on farmboys wearing shoes on a daily basis. I am always eager to learn I do so hate being ignorant!
Christopher

[Doughboy]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

http://books.google.com/books?id=aQZr8PicfLkC&lpg=PA97&ots=DUJyouljYu&dq=how%20many%20men%20wore%20shoes%20in%20the%20antbellum%20south&pg=PA97

Here is a link to an article from a book. While not definitive it at least gives some corroboation to my initial statement.

I grew up in rural Virginia and rarely wore shoes in the summer. this was 1960's not 1860's so don't blow a gasket. As winter was approaching the family I was living with and working for bought me a pair of boots for the winter. I didn't care whether they had eyelets, were made in USA or what. They kept my feet warm.
The following summer I put them away again.
CW

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Hallo!

Moderator hat on...

Herr Christopher, the best way to get out of a hole one is digging is to first stopping digging.

"The cost would have to come out of a soldiers pocket and I can imagine there were millions of other necessities he would rather have. Probably a good number in the CS ranks would never have worn shoes at all before the war so eyelets would hardly have been an issue."

The AC Forum has an expectation of researched and documented information. Information that is outside (and often even inside) of where the Hinge Point of our Collective Knowledge resides at the moment, requires
documentation and/or citation.

Saying that the added cost of soldiers having to pay for eyelets implies that soldiers had eyeletted shoes and saying that there were millions of other necessities implies that there were choices and options in issued items.
Both notions are outside of our Collective Knowledge and according to the standards of the AC Forum require documentation.

"Probably a good number in the CS ranks would never have worn shoes at all before the war..." is outside as well. A "probably" implies a certainty, certitude, or high probability as does "a good number."

As an aside...

When one looks at practices, customs, and happenings that are normal, usual, general, common, etc., in research one should avoid "universal statements" such as "never," or "always" because they exclude the possibility of the exception or even anything different. "Probably" is such a Universal Statement that requires documentation.
As is "would never have worn shoes at all all before the war." "Never" and
"at all" are Universal Statements. We can have numerous references to Confederate soldiers in units, times, and places without shoes and barefoot.
"Probably a good number" "never" having worn shoes "at all" before the War begs documentation. Some, yes. The certainty of "good numbers," not likely unless valid and reliable research and documentation sheds light on sufficiently high numbers to be noteworthy and supportive of the statement.

(And then there is also the danger of taking the exception and making it the
norm. Such as looking at Samuel Richardson's jaguar chaps and holsters and saying "Confederates always wore jaguar skin trousers.")

Curt

[PogueMahone]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

http://books.google.com/books?id=aQZ...0south&pg=PA97


Here is a link to an article from a book. While not definitive it at least gives some corroboation to my initial statement.
CW

Chris,

I'd challenge the writer of that book to show his research. Based on what he says, no one wore shoes much, north or south. They all just ran around barefoot like cavemen. Really? How did we all miss that all these years?

I grew up in the south in the 1960's, too. I can recall running around the yard without shoes. It was fun. I also had several pairs of shoes in the closet.

You can be mad at me all you want, but clearly your post was not based on any real research or documentation.

[Doughboy]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

I am certainly not angry, just a little puzzled that a lack of nuance on my part should have caused such an intense reaction on yours!
I have at least cited one document. You can certainly question his research but I have yet to see your documentation for the obverse opinion. I am not claiming this as definitive just an example since I was asked to produce something.

I shall try in future to be more clear and not assume that the reader is capable of reading more than is written. I don't have time to write a tome whenever I make the mistake of posting.

Back to the point:

Would a footsoldier spend his hard earned money on eyelets for his bootees?
Possibly, not likely (opinion). Would it be a common occurence? Doubtful (again opinion) Would it have happened on occasion? Almost certainly. Do I have documentation? No. Do you? I would love to see it.
Thanks for the lively conversation
Christopher Wilson

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Hallo!

Moderator hat on...

It would appear that my last comments did not rein this one in, but trying one more time for the Teachable Moment...

Finding something published in a modern/recent book is an example of a tertiary source- something written after the fact in Time by people not connected to, involved, or having experienced the thing, etc.

Getting something published is often more a matter of an editor and publisher believing that the manuscript has a chance of netting a return profit for their investment moreso than any great veritas or contribution to scholarly knowledge.

In brief and to over-generalize...

When one gets beyond Primary and Secondary source material, the mamximim even optimum value of Tertiary accounts lies in being able to:

1. compare and contrast the author's views, opinions, inferences, and analysis of primary and secondary source material with the Resting Point/Hinge Pin of where our Collective Knowledge (now) resides, and

2. better yet, has the author done footnotes, endnotes, appendices, or even bibliographies where a reader can test whether the author is factual, opinionated, or just plain wrong by reviewing the source material they derived or based their views, opinions, inferences, and analysis on.

Curt

[AndrewGrim]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Have you ever seen a farm? Try doing daily chores barefoot. Slaves would be given shoes annually, yet free white men would “probably never have worn shoes”.

[PogueMahone]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

I am certainly not angry, just a little puzzled that a lack of nuance on my part should have caused such an intense reaction on yours!
I have at least cited one document. You can certainly question his research but I have yet to see your documentation for the obverse opinion. I am not claiming this as definitive just an example since I was asked to produce something.

I shall try in future to be more clear and not assume that the reader is capable of reading more than is written. I don't have time to write a tome whenever I make the mistake of posting.

Back to the point:

Would a footsoldier spend his hard earned money on eyelets for his bootees?
Possibly, not likely (opinion). Would it be a common occurence? Doubtful (again opinion) Would it have happened on occasion? Almost certainly. Do I have documentation? No. Do you? I would love to see it.
Thanks for the lively conversation
Christopher Wilson

Here's a suggestion:
Don't use the words "never" or "always" or you create absolutes with zero wiggle room. If you had said that "some southerners may not have worn shoes except in the dead of winter", then you would have been speculating based on anectdotal history. I think it would have been incorrect in the assumption, but it would not have been an absolute.

You don't have to write a tome, but you do have to consider your choice of words.

How can anyone read more than is written?

As for my documentation ... where to begin? Period photographs, paintings, woodcuts, the numerous patterns in women's magazines about making their own shoes at home, the prevalence of advertisements in newspapers and periodicals showing that shoes were available, selling and priced reasonably, the thousands of diaries and journals and books that mention someone getting shoes, wearing shoes, losing shoes, repairing shoes, etc. You could probably run an advanced search on the AC civilian forum for image attachments and find dozens of examples of original images.

I will offer this link as a starting point: The History of Shoes

Finally, to address another assertion of your's:
Soldiers were given a clothing allowance annually. Whatever they drew in clothing from the quartermaster was charged against this allowance. If the shoes issued had brass eyelets (which is the question asked in the post), they were not going to be "extra" out of the pocket of the soldier, they were just whatever was issued.

Private purchase shoes would have cost whatever they cost and the buyer bears the burden.