The novelty of shoes?

[Doughboy]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Curt, not to beat a dead horse but the volume cited does indeed have a bibliography.
I never said free white men probably never wore shoes. That entire issue is was and remains beside the point of responding to whether or not a soldier would spend money to put eyelets in his issue bootees.

Merely a surmise on my part, not meant to be or presented as documented;
An opinion, not strongly held nor particularly invested in just put up for discussion.

Again I apologize if anyone is so terribly incensed at what was an meant to be an offhand conjecture.

I have to wonder at the depth of umbrage taken but OK if you need to continue to apply tar and feathers, pile on..
I shall sit back and wonder
Christopher Wilson

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Hallo!

Moderator hat on...

"Curt, not to beat a dead horse but the volume cited does indeed have a bibliography."

Herr Christopher, I, we, are trying to work with you to get your research to the "A Game" level consistent with the AC Forum's culture, not necessarily piling it on.

"In brief and to over-generalize...

When one gets beyond Primary and Secondary source material, the 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."

IMHO, you either genuinely "don't get it," or you are one of those masterfully skillful posters who delight in pushing the buttons and rattling cages of other posters.
Rather than close the thread down, you have the benefit of the doubt.

Still trying to get your "A Game" up and level the playing field when it comes to history, research, and documentation and how they are linked...

By any chance, have you read the "Research 101" series of articles/posts archived here on the AC?

In that author's bibliography, what books does he reference containing primary and secondary accounts (sufficient enough to be valid and reliable) that support his written view about the not wearing shoes?

Trying to help, not pile on... (but coming to be reminded of Dr. Phil's Life Law No 1.)
And trying to reduce the Reported Post volume threads like this so contrary to the culture of the AC Forum tend to generate.)

Curt

[Doughboy]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Curt,
Not trying to push buttons here and clearly not skillful.
Mr Mahone, Could you please highlight pages in that delightful book that deal specifically with this issue?

Again, I was not clear, or at least inartful. I don't have the experience posting on forums that you have. I was not trying to present anything as documented, just conjecturing. Were bootees issued with eyelets? Please share, seriously. I don't doubt it but still have not seen documentation. Do I really care? Not at this point but it has been brought up so is of minor interest.
Am I trying to push buttons? Nope, but as I have been called on the carpet for documentation I would appreciate if someone could please provide their own. Saying you have a mound of documentation is not the same as providing it.
Let's keep things on an even field here. Next time I come upon something on either side of this issue I will share. Won't you do the same? I have no dog in this fight. I have shoes, don't want eyelets, and am not particularly interested in reading entire volumes to see whether they existed or not but as you have brought it up please let's see where it leads. You can call people on the carpet no problem. I fessed up to my shortcomings. I admit it. I have fallen short in your eyes. So be it. I can live with that. Did I do something shameful or hurtful or purposefully try to start a fight? Sorry no. Just made a simple conjecture. Sorry.
Thanks
Christopher Wilson

[Hank Trent]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Curt, not to beat a dead horse but the volume cited does indeed have a bibliography.

It also contains statements easily shown to be inaccurate, such as this:

"Before the Civil War, shoe manufacturers produced one men's size, one women's size, and one children's size."

I knew that was wrong, but rather than expect anyone to take my word for it, I'd citethis, which explains the sizing of ready-made shoes in the U.S. in the 1850s. It was easy to find by searching shoes sizes Massachusetts, that state being a common center for ready-made shoes before and during the war.

The more one studies the 19th century, the more one can quickly recognize reenactorisms, distortions, misinterpretations and errors, and judge the reliability of sources accordingly.

I have to wonder at the depth of umbrage taken

Well, y'know, people here care.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Doughboy]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

I know people care Hank,
It is not the discussion, it is the tone that is ridiculous.
Far easier in the first to say "take a look at a recent discussion on the Civilian forums" than to say "...ignorant". Not exactly inviting a discussion is it?

I did read that particular thread out of interest and it seems that there is some inference that there were a lot of shoeless Joe's out there. An interesting discussion and I did not once see the word "ignorant" thrown at anyone. Just wondering why the immediate and unfriendly response rather than an attempt to engage.
Christopher Wilson

[Hank Trent]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

I did read that particular thread out of interest and it seems that there is some inference that there were a lot of shoeless Joe's out there.

As I recall, there wasn't much in there to indicate there was a subset of adult white males who never wore shoes. The consensus seemed to be that typically, they owned shoes but may have tried to make them last as long as possible by going barefoot. If there was a major demographic who typically never wore shoes, I'd be curious for more info.

To the topic at hand, has anyone followed this trail back?
http://www.robertlandhistoricshoes.c...t/Detail?no=14 Robert Land claims to make

faithful reproductions of one style of English military shoe originally imported into the Confederacy. But, due to the large amount of blockade runners that were captured these shoes were highly regarded by Union army also. Two metal eyelets, Stitched soles, with a handy cloth pull tab at the back. These shoes have a broad flat toe just like the originals. These shoes can easily be hobnailed. A photo showing a pair with this feature is in "Echos of Glory" Confederate...

Though he references the pair in Echoes of Glory mainly for the hobnails, do they have metal eyelets too? Is there anything in EOG about their provenance? I don't have EOG, so can't look it up.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Doughboy]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Hank,
I tried much earlier in the thread to apologize for a carelessly loose statement. Again you can continue to beat but the horse is dead. I misspoke.
I wasn't clear. I did not make an historical claim, I made a conjecture OK?? Never is a figure of speech. Do I believe a LOT of people NEVER wore shoes? No. Wearing shoes ONCE makes that comment inaccurate, clearly.


OK. What else do you want?


Christopher Wilson

[Doughboy]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Pete,
I can tell you from personal experience that suppositions are dangerous, even if you can post some documentation.
I guess though it ultimately depends on what side of the mods you fall on.
Christopher Wilson

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

Hallo!

"I can tell you from personal experience that suppositions are dangerous, even if you can post some documentation."

Herr Chris. Is there any part of research and documentation you actually understand or comprehend?

Please feel free to post "some" primary or even secondary source material "documentation" that supports the "conjectures" or "suppositions" you have posted and attempted to defend in this thread beyond the undocumented (and historically and socially historically incorrect) referencing to an author's undocumented (and historical as well social-historically incorrect) opinions.

"I guess though it ultimately depends on what side of the mods you fall on."

That would be better and more accurately written as:

"I guess though it ultimately depends on what side of the AC Forum's rules, policies, and culture you fall on."

Lad, you are still digging that hole, and are now starting to throw the dirt in the faces of those trying to help you out of it.

Curt

[David Fox]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

This thread has, unexpectedly, achieved a metapysically recondite plane. It may have no end, ever.

[Doughboy]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

"I can tell you from personal experience that suppositions are dangerous, even if you can post some documentation."

Herr Chris. Is there any part of research and documentation you actually understand or comprehend?

Please feel free to post "some" primary or even secondary source material "documentation" that supports the "conjectures" or "suppositions" you have posted and attempted to defend in this thread beyond the undocumented (and historically and socially historically incorrect) referencing to an author's undocumented (and historical as well social-historically incorrect) opinions.

"I guess though it ultimately depends on what side of the mods you fall on."

That would be better and more accurately written as:

"I guess though it ultimately depends on what side of the AC Forum's rules, policies, and culture you fall on."

Lad, you are still digging that hole, and are now starting to throw the dirt in the faces of those trying to help you out of it.

Curt
__________________Herr Schmidtt,
I do not believe the citation I made was inaccurate. He did provide a bibliograpy. (This merely for the sake of a discussion on sources) and I am sure that if you read each of the cited books in that bibliography you might find some documentation on either side of the question. Whether you agree or not is moot until you or someone produces countering citations which I so far have not seen. Again, I am not claiming that is a definitive source, merely a reference as I was asked for by Ms Clark. for the sake of discussion. I am also not sure how you can call it historically and socially historically incorrect until you have checked his sources. Let's keep the rules the same for all sides of a discussion. I am digging no hole merely discussing. It appears that discussion is only permissible if the mods sanction the rules. Once again I have yet to see any documentation of the opoosing view to my initial inelegant comment. I am interested for the sake of discussion to see such documentation. I am trying to keep things on the level of an open sharing of info and not personal attacks. Please, publish your own research. As I told you I am trying, just for the sake of clarity, to find info on the subject of shoes in the antebellum south. I wasn't particularly interested but I certainly am now. I don't have a side here so am just hoping to find the truth of the matter. I have asked you to post your info just as I have asked Joe. So far I have seen nothing. Let's have more light and less heat. The only hole I see here is the one waiting to be filled with information. I am not trying to pass your exam, just trying to get some information posted. So either let's get back to Mr. Paolillo's question of whether or not we should see issue booties with eyelets in the ranks and in what percentage, repost this as a seperate thread and let's get some real documentation on the issue of whether and to what degree shoes were commonly worn amongst the yeomanry of the southern section, or close down this thread.
I am merely asking for discussion at this point and don't care which side the truth falls on. I am only interested in what the truth is.
To be clear, from the start I have never attempted to "defend" the initial posting. I posted a citation at the insistence of Ms Clark. I then in every instance acknowledged my lack of clarity in the initial post and sought to allay your suspicions of my motives which I don't believe you can document.
Can there actually be a discussion here? Can we get back to the point?
What are the facts? I honestly want to know.
Can one of you please tell me? Sounds to me like your definition of digging a hole is asking a question.

[Abrams]

Re: brass eyelets on enlisted mean's Jefferson Booties

This thread has been an interesting and enlightening conversation. I never cease to be amazed at the depth of research that goes on here on these boards to try and discover the 'truth' about the past. I have been fascinated about topics ranging from eyelets, making soap, the making and dying of yarn and thread, and the research needed to really find out how they did things back then.

I find I am fascinated by the discussions and depth of research and information that is available by people so willing to share what they know and can show documentation about. I learn a lot here by reading 10 times more than I post.

Here is another example of learning something new. Thank you David for putting into words something I have experienced many times before, but never knew what to name it.

This thread has, unexpectedly, achieved a metapysically recondite plane. It may have no end, ever.

With your permission, I would like to use this phrase when I get into my next political discussion with my Aunt.

[AZReenactor]

The novelty of shoes?

After trying to read the original thread it seemed the side topic needed a new home for posts unrelated to the question regarding brass eyelets on shoes.