Scavenging the battlefield prevented by soiled clothing ?

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Scavenging the battlefield prevented by soiled clothing ?

Fecalized Federal Finery nothwithstanding .....more importantly for the research focused living historian....

I came home and blew through my materials, looked online a bit.....and I can not find a single primary,annotated reference of the dead being stripped of trousers for reuse.

Anyone ?

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Scavenging the battlefield prevented by soiled clothing ?

I'm wondering how many soldiers would have the time to do this:

"In order to remove the clothing from the body and proceed with the autopsy, the rigor present in the arms must be broken. This is accomplished by applying pressure in an attempt to move the elbow and shoulder joints. When enough pressure is applied, the rigor mortis will 'break,' and the joint will be freely moveable. Once rigor is broken, it will not return."

If you hurry up you might get them before they stiffen, but speed does not always guarantee success:

"Another caveat regarding the time of onset of rigor mortis involves situations where the decedent is extremely physically active immediately prior to death... In such situations the onset of rigor mortis can be nearly instantaneous and can sometimes be referred to as 'cadaveric spasm.'"

Excerpts from Joseph Prahlow: Forensic Pathology for Forensic Scientists, Police, and Death Investigators, p. 167

[Hank Trent]

Re: Scavenging the battlefield prevented by soiled clothing ?

Maybe a different angle to approach this is to look for accounts of the dead actually being stripped. Disgusting or not, if it was done, it was done. What I can find so far is stuff that may or may not have actually happened or have been exaggerated, though the story-tellers were presenting their accounts as if they expected people to believe them. Anyone got any more obviously believable sounding examples?

From John Townsend Trowbridge's trip to the south, post war (1866), where he's talking to a former rebel soldier about Fredericksburg:

"...You never saw anything look as that plain did after the battle. Saturday morning, before the fight, it was brown ; Sunday it was all blue; Monday it was white, and Tuesday it was red."

I asked him to explain this seeming riddle.

" Don't you see ? Before the fight there was just the field. Next it was covered all over with your fellows in blue clothes. Saturday night the blue clothes were stripped off, and only their white under-clothes left. Monday night these were stripped off, and Tuesday they lay all in their naked skins."

" Who stripped the dead in that way ? "

" It was mostly done by the North Carolinians. They are the triflin'est set of men! "

" What do you mean by triflin'est ? "

" They ha'n't got no sense. They 'll stoop to anything. They 're more like savages than civilized men. They say ' we 'uns' and ' you 'urn,' and all such outlandish phrases. They've got a great long tone to their voice, like something wild." (Source http://books.google.com/books?id=sB4SAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA107)

Another example, from a report on the seige of Knoxville:

The conduct of the rebels was barbarous in the extreme. All prisoners, dead, and wounded were stripped. Four dead bodies of the Forty-fifth were found quite naked. One wounded officer, while unconscious, was aroused by efforts to cut off his finger, to obtain a gold ring. He was stripped to his shirt and drawers. Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=3rh2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA249

From History of the First - Tenth - Twenty-ninth Maine Regiment published in 1871:

Our captains, Emerson and Nye, brought back the sad story of our suffering wounded ones. Both the dead and wounded had been stripped of their valuables, and their shoes. Many of them had lost their trowsers, but the dark blue blouses, being of no use, had been taken from only a few. Our two captains saw many who had suffered without being relieved, though they had been found and robbed of everything. We have charity to believe that there were few or none in the enemy's ranks who committed such villanies.... It probably was done by the skulks of the enemy, for Sergt. Weeks says he heard the rebel officers give orders for our wounded to be guarded and cared for. Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=Ve7x9u_OpWAC&pg=PA182

Another one, from the recipient's point of view. The Confederate writer claims he got a diary, blue pants and a hat from someone who said he took them from a Union soldier's body. Post war, he's trying to contact the diary's owner, if he happened to survive, or someone who knew him.

How did I get your diary? It is needless to ask if you did not have in your regiment pillagers, those who could pilfer from the dead but could never see or hear or walk well enough to shoot an honest enemy. One of these, who was 'moon blind,' and could go in no fights, got your knapsack, he said from your dead body. I purchased from him a pair of blue pants, a nice cap, and the diary. You know clothing was scarce with us about that time. [Kinston, NC, spring of 1865] Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=Uo8...AAJ&pg=RA1-PA2

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Scavenging the battlefield prevented by soiled clothing ?

Hallo!

I am too lazy to read through all of the Texas Brigade books for one reference, but will mention that IIRC, a Brigade member "Red" Harris (?) ended up with a pair of "liberated" sky-blue trousers from the dead. As he was a tall man, the trousers were too short And left a gap above his shoes that he closed with a pair of "liberated" leggings.

William Fletcher of Company "F," of the 5th Texas recalled ("Rebel Private", etc., pp50-51) that at Fredericksburg, that he:

"saw more dead bodies of the right kind, covering broad acres, that it was ever pleasure to see before or since." with most of the dead on their backs, nearly all stripped naked as "... [his] part of the line had stripped the dead the most." He also commented that the stripping was not just soldiers in need of clothing and shoes but also by civilians and soldiers detailed to support functions. He wrote, "...the clothing, when washed, was good stock in second hand stores and its benefit was that it supplied the wanting soldier and poor citizens at a low price."

"Rigor" is complicated. Rigor mortis (stiffening) is NUG time and temperature related. It NUG starts in a few hours a few hours, peaks after 12 hours, and then falls off over the next 72 hours or so. (The contraction of the muscles can expel excrement and/or urine, as can intestinal decomp gases blowing out of later relaxed anal muscles both at rest and when a body is moved.)

Curt

[Jimmayo]

Re: Scavenging the battlefield prevented by soiled clothing ?

[Quote}I came home and blew through my materials, looked online a bit.....and I can not find a single primary,annotated reference of the dead being stripped of trousers for reuse.

Anyone ?

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida[/QUOTE]

"Johnny Reb and Billy Yank" by Alexander Hunter. In this book to the best of my memory, Hunter describes that after the battle of Fredricksburg he removed the trousers off of a big Yankee dutchman and Hunter, being a little guy had the company tailor alter them. He even mentions wearing them at the time he was captured later in the war. Couldn't find it in the book (It's over 600 pages) but I remember reading it at one time. Good book. Would make one great movie.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Scavenging the battlefield prevented by soiled clothing ?

"Johnny Reb and Billy Yank" by Alexander Hunter. In this book to the best of my memory, Hunter describes that after the battle of Fredricksburg he removed the trousers off of a big Yankee dutchman and Hunter, being a little guy had the company tailor alter them. He even mentions wearing them at the time he was captured later in the war. Couldn't find it in the book (It's over 600 pages) but I remember reading it at one time. Good book. Would make one great movie.

Here it is online:

http://books.google.com/books?id=g_CYl48uMbQC

I searched for Fredericksburg, Dutchman, trowsers, tailor, pants, and a few other thing with no luck. Closest I could find was page 446, when some of the men get oversized trowsers from a living donor who was short and fat, with a joke about a fat Dutchman, while the author himself says "My share of this unique contribution was a pair of Yankee pants discarded as worthless by the owner."

He does mention taking clothes from the dead on page 175, but not anything that specific: "there was hardly a soldier in Longstreet's devision who did not obtain a complete outfit of clothes, besides knapsacks, haversacks, blankets..."

Also, on page 259, he complains about scavengers: "Every dead body had been searched, every pocket was wrong side out, proving that the camp followers and robbers of the dead had completed their work. Every corpse, whether in blue or gray uniform, had been divested of its shoes and hat, and many even had their outer clothing removed. As several of our brigades passed we heard the troops curse fiercely the miserable pillagers who, like birds of prey, flocked to the battle-field after the action to accomplish their foul purposes. A true soldier rarely condescends to strip his fallen enemies; he will take a pair of shoes or a hat if he needs them badly, but it must be from necessity and not from a desire of gain."

Any idea what to search for, to find the specific description of him taking the trowsers himself?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[lukegilly13]

Re: Scavenging the battlefield prevented by soiled clothing ?

I think it is impossible, without being in their (read actualy civil war soldier) position that we can make a judgement on whether or not they would have taken the clothing soiled or unsoiled.

Meaning:
1. Is it possible that during combat in the extremes and frequencies of some Civil War units that soldiers get so used to death and carniage that it goes beyond comprehension? In other words, having ones own clothes already covered in dirt, grime, and perhaps blood and flesh from fellow soldier's wounds....and horrible carniage being a frequent norm....could a soldier not look upon the "soiling" as quite so repulsive as we (citizens who have never been "there") do? Does the death and battlefield smell so bad that "poop" would be the least of your concerns?

2. Could they have been in such a state of need that they ignored the other factors and did what they needed to do to ensure their own survival? I've read accounts of the dead on the Fredericksburg battle field being stripped naked over night. Could the soldiers have been so cold and so shaken that they ignored the sickening nature and took the clothes to survive?

Getting back more to the original post, in a time before toilet paper, I imagine the south side of a pair of white drawers did not look/smell to great whether the wearer lost control of his bowels or not.

[Coatsy]

Re: Scavenging the battlefield prevented by soiled clothing ?

Folks, Mr. Duffer asked a fair question. Jim M, Curt, and Hank have given great replies lets stay on topic with this one please.

[john duffer]

Re: Scavenging the battlefield prevented by soiled clothing ?

" Someone with combat experience please comment here to this. "

This is not the sort of memory I think we should ask a combat veteran to dredge up.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Scavenging the battlefield prevented by soiled clothing ?

Hallo!

1. Is it possible that during combat in the extremes and frequencies of some Civil War units that soldiers get so used to death and carniage that it goes beyond comprehension? In other words, having ones own clothes already covered in dirt, grime, and perhaps blood and flesh from fellow soldier's wounds....and horrible carniage being a frequent norm....could a soldier not look upon the "soiling" as quite so repulsive as we (citizens who have never been "there") do? Does the death and battlefield smell so bad that "poop" would be the least of your concerns?

2. Could they have been in such a state of need that they ignored the other factors and did what they needed to do to ensure their own survival? I've read accounts of the dead on the Fredericksburg battle field being stripped naked over night. Could the soldiers have been so cold and so shaken that they ignored the sickening nature and took the clothes to survive?


IMHO, I think we may still be "hung up" a bit on having every combat fatality having evacuated his bowels, bladder, and stomach.

And Period accounts seem to avoid the unpleasant side of soiled clothing which might lead one to assume that IF the ratio of soiled to unsoiled was small, that they got what they wanted or needed from unsoiled sources? Fletcher does make a comment on the clothing being washed fro sale in second-hand clothing shops. But yes, I would presume a soldier who was freezing to death might not be so unpleasantly squeemish about a greatcoat soiled with vomit or worse if the choice was life or death.

I am having a rare memory lapse. There used to be (still is?) a Confederate uniform on display at Chancellorsville Visitor Center (??) of a sergeant (??) where they had cut off the one trouser leg to amputate the leg. The trousers had been soiled, stained, and damaged either by loss of control by the trauma or as some have speculated by dysentary.

In the Modern World, I have never gotten the smell the smell of excrement whether from corpses or crap and diesel fuel burning in 55 gallon drums. But, I will admit, the human body has a wonderful way of
decreasing the stink over time as the nose "gets used to it." The "longer" one smells a stink, the less "sharp" it seems. And yes, "exposure" to the effects of violence and trauma also can reduce its immediate impact, but often can lead to PTSD type "internal" issues later.

On another note, yeah, "potty humor" can be hard to avoid. In reenacting and living history, there are somethings that we choose not to simulate or emulate out of:

1. seriousness
2. believabiity
3. respect
4. common sense.

For example, criminal offenses such as rapes.
Talk of simulating the effects of "loss of control" trauma or dysentary is not up to AC standards.

Curt

[lukegilly13]

Re: Scavenging the battlefield prevented by soiled clothing ?

" Someone with combat experience please comment here to this. "

This is not the sort of memory I think we should ask a combat veteran to dredge up.

You're right. I didn't mean for it to come out that way. I deleted it. Did not mean to offend anyone...and I sincerely appologize if I did.

My intention was to certify anyone who had not been "there" (including myself) unqualified to judge.

[Jimmayo]

Re: Scavenging the battlefield prevented by soiled clothing ?

Here it is online:

http://books.google.com/books?id=g_CYl48uMbQC

I searched for Fredericksburg, Dutchman, trowsers, tailor, pants, and a few other thing with no luck. Closest I could find was page 446, when some of the men get oversized trowsers from a living donor who was short and fat, with a joke about a fat Dutchman, while the author himself says "My share of this unique contribution was a pair of Yankee pants discarded as worthless by the owner."

He does mention taking clothes from the dead on page 175, but not anything that specific: "there was hardly a soldier in Longstreet's devision who did not obtain a complete outfit of clothes, besides knapsacks, haversacks, blankets..."

Also, on page 259, he complains about scavengers: "Every dead body had been searched, every pocket was wrong side out, proving that the camp followers and robbers of the dead had completed their work. Every corpse, whether in blue or gray uniform, had been divested of its shoes and hat, and many even had their outer clothing removed. As several of our brigades passed we heard the troops curse fiercely the miserable pillagers who, like birds of prey, flocked to the battle-field after the action to accomplish their foul purposes. A true soldier rarely condescends to strip his fallen enemies; he will take a pair of shoes or a hat if he needs them badly, but it must be from necessity and not from a desire of gain."

Any idea what to search for, to find the specific description of him taking the trowsers himself?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

I had a copy of the original manuscript once and it may have been in there. I looked for it in my original printing prior to the post but couldn't find it either but I am sure it was in there somewhere. Hunter liked to embelish his experiences and there are differences between the three sources (four if you count the on line copy). Of course it could be that I am mistaken and that is quite possible. the memory is not as sharp as it used to be. If I get time I will look some more. I have more than a passing interest in Hunter. The pinfire in the picture once belonged to him. By the way, the wall label is an old one. The gun was made in Belgium. Hunter is buried in the Confederate section of Arlington.

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Scavenging the battlefield prevented by soiled clothing ?

I have every respect for what is written in period, historical accounts since they are only what we have left of the battles. Knowing what I have experienced in combat on this topic, I have to think what motivated someone to write-down what they did. Some thoughts:

As I have said, gunshot wounds are a different story compared to violent explosion-related deaths. One might be able to salvage pieces of clothing and acoutrements off of a body if the wound/bodily fluids were relatively localized. (ie: you could potentially take/use the socks off of the dead if they received a head wound when they died...)

I know for a fact, though, that if someone and their clothing were completely covered in human filth (as in a cannon-blast for example), I would have to be extrordinarily desperate/insane to take that clothing off and wear it. Besides, there are probably other bodies on the field to choose from regarding a bit cleaner of clothing if I needed clothing to replace my own. Even a rag-tag soldier of the period would think twice before taking clothing of this nature, I'd think, based-upon stuff I've seen.

Caveat: Leather goods being entirely different than the above since they do potentially resist stainage. That's why they are good pick-ups off of a battlefield strewn with dead soldiers.

For me, I'm never quite comfortable with this topic as a combat veteran and being in this hobby, but you do wonder about it in retrospect and how it might relate to the Civil War. Soldiers of all periods probably have felt the same way.

All the best- Johnny

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Scavenging the battlefield prevented by soiled clothing ?

I think it's significant that a few of the cited accounts of scavenged clothing point the finger at civilians. The clothes would not need to be wearable to have value. Buttons could be recycled or sold, and the rag trade was significant. This, for example, from the Proceedings of the New York State Agricultural Society in 1863:

"It has been mentioned that old or second-hand materials are extensively used in the manufacture of the lower classes of woolen goods; these are shoddy, mungo and extract wool. At one time the very name of shoddy was sufficient to excite prejudice, if not disgust; but that time has passed away, the useful properties of shoddy when judiciously applied have long since been recognized, and at present the industry of whole districts depends upon it. Its value and importance, in a commercial point of view, being second only to that of wool, require that it should be noticed in a report on woolen goods.

"Shoddy is of three kinds. 1. Shoddy as manufactured from soft woolen rags, as flannels, blankets, stockings, carpets, &c. 2. Mungo, manufactured from hard and fine woolen rags, and new cloth cuttings, &c. 3. Extract wool; that is, wool extracted from mixed cotton and woolen rags by a chemical process, which consumes the cotton, leaving the wool intact.

"The two former sorts are held in greatest estimation, as possessing better felting properties. The use of shoddy in the manufacture of woolen goods commenced about fifty years ago; its progress, however, was very slow until within the last twenty years, during which it has assumed gigafttic proportions."

The above, I think, comes from a British source, but the New American Cyclopaedia of 1862 notes: "In the United States shoddy has become a manufacture of considerable importance, and the article is also imported from England. Six factories in the state of New York are engaged in its production, in the towns of Watervliet, Troy, Newburg, and Marlborough. Its presence in fabrics is detected in wearing garments by the collection of rolls of short wool between the cloth and the lining. The sale of shoddy is already a branch of business of some importance in Cedar street, New York."

Perhaps battlefield harvests helped reduce our dependence on English imports.