If I may ...

[Drygoods]

Re: If I may ...

[QUOTE=Hank Trent;143676]Actually, what I'm most interested in is the context in which these houses were actually sold and used. Would a middle to lower-class rural or small-town easterner have heard of them? Seen one? Lived in one? If not that kind of person, who would?QUOTE]


Well, personally my feeling is that if someone were to buy one, and use it, they'd likely take all of their most valuable possesions and get as far away from the army and battles as they could possibly get. In other words, buy a portable house, move till the war was over, at some safe distance, and sit and wait for the all clear signal.:sarcastic Why linger in the path of danger?

[Beth Crabb]

Re: If I may ...

...... Personally, I believe that suspension of disbelief plays a big part, and it will be different for every person and every circumstance.

If one takes the attitude that if something isn't "authentic," it's a failure, then every reenactor and every reenactment is a failure.

......The second way is researching how things were, while cheerfully admitting you're not reenacting things that way, if need be. If people want to define that as a failure, okay, fine, whatever. They can stay home. Like, for example, civilians fleeing on foot from the army carrying everything for several days in the woods. Very rare, very nontypical--even for the already-unusual circumstance of fleeing at the time of the battle rather than staying in one's house or leaving long before. There ought to be houses to stop at along the road, and animal-drawn vehicles or at least horses to ride. It's as oddball as a 10 x 12 portable house.

And yet, I've done that more times than I can remember, only because it's a cheap and practical role for civilians at events. So what? It's more fun than staying home, and still allows me to get some sense of stepping back in time.

........It's not just a civilian problem. Military reenactors deal with the same issues as well, carefully crafting events to cope with the modern landscape, lack of wagons, animals and fully-populated armies.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Hank, I really agree with what you have said here. In my own sarcastic way :p I was replying to comments earlier in the thread, such as "It is very frustrating that so many adopt the "it's civilian so anything goes mentality" as I do not think too many of us on the AC have that viewpoint.

I am very serious in my request for suggestions for a way to construct a building that would be portable and acceptable authenticity wise. I am open to any ideas on how to incorporate period construction, including foundations & roofing and yet keep it within the realm of what is physically possible in moving the structure.

I also totally agree with Joe's thought here: "There is a suspension of disbelief required for reenacting. We don't use bullets or shrapnel, we don't all have lice, breastworks are usually "stick forts" that wouldn't stop spit, and age and weight must be ignored for the vast majority of participants. The obstacle of housing limits civilian participants at the majority of events to just a few impressions and those roles get repeated over and over again. I think that learning more about the construction styles and methods used would be helpful in creating possibilities for more roles and experiences for civilian participants."

So maybe the answer is; the suspension of disbelief is in the eye of the beholder? ;)

[PogueMahone]

Re: If I may ...

Well, personally my feeling is that if someone were to buy one, and use it, they'd likely take all of their most valuable possesions and get as far away from the army and battles as they could possibly get. In other words, buy a portable house, move till the war was over, at some safe distance, and sit and wait for the all clear signal.:sarcastic Why linger in the path of danger?

An ancestor of mine, Daniel Dotson Smotherman, was wounded at Shiloh fighting under Pat Cleburne and left with a bad limp. He went home to Unionville, Tenn., and there stayed for the duration of the war. However, because Federal cavalry would venture out from Nashville and Murfreesboro, and during the occupation post-Stones River the Unionist Home Guard was on a spree of vengeful killings, he found himself hiding in the woods more and more to avoid the likely arrest, imprisonment and/or death that was sure to come. He eventually built himself a shack out in the deep woods and stayed there for weeks at a time.

Somewhere I have a copy of poem he had published in the Shelbyville Gazette after the war about his trials and tribulations.

Hey, did I just document the use of a shack in the woods for one man to live in during the war?

Good ol' D.D.!;)

[Citizen_Soldier]

Re: If I may ...

Greetings,

In the end it boils down to knowledge acquired through solid research. All to often reenactors, regardless of the era focus on "what looks cool" instead of conducting research or applying that knowledge in an appropriate context.

As our knowledge base expands through research we start realizing that some things while certainly "cool" looking, are not historically appropriate to what is being interpreted. An example would be the mainstream Civil War reenactors who adorn thier hats with loads of hat brass, feathers, and Corps badges. To them it looks cool and there is evidence in the historical record that some soldiers wore such materials. However through research many in the AC community have learned that this is not appropriate in every context.

I encourage folks to do more research on the period housing subject before attempting to utilizing recreated scaled down structures for interpretation. As you increase your knowledge base, you'll realize that while these small transportable reproduction houses are "cool" they do not compare favorably to what is common in the historical and archeological record.

Beth Crabb wrote:

I also totally agree with Joe's thought here: "There is a suspension of disbelief required for reenacting. We don't use bullets or shrapnel, we don't all have lice, breastworks are usually "stick forts" that wouldn't stop spit, and age and weight must be ignored for the vast majority of participants.

Over the years I've seen this same approach used by mainstreamers to justify a number of unauthentic material culture and living history aspects of their hobby.

Beth Crabb wrote:

I was replying to comments earlier in the thread, such as "It is very frustrating that so many adopt the "it's civilian so anything goes mentality" as I do not think too many of us on the AC have that viewpoint.

Many folks on the AC try very hard to have strong civilian impressions, however it becomes complicated as AC approved vendors sell incorrect items for The Rebellion period, such as post-war overalls or ring canteens.

Beth Crabb wrote:

One gentleman seemed to imply that if an event did not have usable historic buildings, civilian reenactors should not be there.

Where was this implied?

The topic of portable housing on the left coast is very interesting, but can anyone document thier use in the American South by refugees in the fashion described by Ms. Peebles? Are there any store ledgers, southern newspaper advertisements, or manuscripts that shed more light on these structures being used in the south?

Darrek Orwig

[Hank Trent]

Re: If I may ...

Well, personally my feeling is that if someone were to buy one, and use it, they'd likely take all of their most valuable possesions and get as far away from the army and battles as they could possibly get. In other words, buy a portable house, move till the war was over, at some safe distance, and sit and wait for the all clear signal.:sarcastic Why linger in the path of danger?

Actually, it was a serious historical question. Is there information on how many of these were actually sold? What part of the country they were seen in? Any mention of them independently from the catalog and patent?

I just can't see jumping directly into fantasizing, before at least trying to learn more about the actual history, especially because there are so many other ways to speculate than just individuals purchasing them for their own use. These could have been sold to companies in charge of railroad or other construction projects, to mining companies for "company towns," to land speculators who wanted to be landlords of an instant town, to the army for barracks... or it could have been a business that failed because few were sold at all.

A couple of unfootnoted secondary sources mention that they were sold to the Union army for hospitals, presumably city hospitals like the quickly erected pavilion hospitals, and not hauled from battlefield to battlefield, but I dunno. If it's true, there should be government contracts out there somewhere, or USSC/USCC discussion of them.

Here's a mention of a portable building purchased just post-war (no manufacturer mentioned), for a colored schoolhouse sponsored in part by the Freedman's Bureau. That's the kind of thing I'm interested in--examples of the actual use of these buildings in context.

This short biography of a David Nelson Skillings sure sounds like it could have been him, since he was a wealthy businessman dealing in lumber and carpentry, but makes no mention of portable houses in his career or his partnership with D B Flint. It may have been a minor enterprise that he abandoned, or it may have just been overlooked.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Drygoods]

Re: If I may ...

Good Day All,

Here's a quote from the catalogue, or as best a I can type it as some of the text lines are missing as the person at the library who made the copies must have been minimum waged.Skillings and Flint's Portable Sectional Buildings, Nov. 19, 1861, State Street Boston, and Wall Street New York
"In presenting to our Customers and the Public a Descriptive Catalogue of a variety of Portable Buildings of our manufacture, we desire to state that they are in use, and are being introduced into new quarters as rapidly as the facts of their immense utility, their adaptation to almost every purpose for which a building is needed, and to almost every style of architecture become known.
We are happy to be able to say, that these buildings have given great satisfaction. They are constructed of the best materials, and the workmanship is of the first quality throughout: these facts are patent at a hasty inspection of our buildings. The different parts are so fitted to each other that they adjust themselves, and are properly secured, in every case, without difficulty.
The construction of these buildings is so simple that two or three men, without mechanical knowledge, or experience in building, can set up one of them IN LESS THAN THREE HOURS; and with equal ease, the same men can take it down, remove it to another locality, and rebuild it without additional material. Indeed, should necessity or convenience require, a complete dwelling-house can be erected, and prepared for family use, in a single night, with scarcely a tithe of the deliberation or labor required to build the meanest shanty.
To Railroad Corporations the importance of even our simplest style of buildings for station-houses for workmen, switch-tenders, and others, is evident at a glance. They can place one of our buildings, more perfect in style and arrangement, more comfortable and durable, also, anywhere on the line of their roads, at a much smaller price and in shorter time, than they can erect buildings for similar purposes.
To those owning large tracts of land on lines or railroad, these houses offer particular inducements, a they may be so located as to bring a farm into.....
...painted both inside and out-side, so as to be complete and ready for occupancy as soon as set up.
To the emigrant settling on a new farm in the West these houses offer peculiar advantages for a cheap, comfortable dwelling, as they can be put up in a few hours where wanted, thus saving weeks, sometimes months, of hard labor, and often incredible sufferings from cold and exposure.
Farmers will find it to their advantage to examine these buildings, as they can be procured of any size or shape, and applied to any purpose for which a building is requite: -- for farmhouses, workmen's houses, tool-houses, carriage houses, fruit-houses, stables, cattle shed. &c.
Persons leasing land will find it for their interest to consult these designs, as the portable sectional house can be temporarily erected at trifling expense, and so easily taken down and packed away that insecurity of property need not enter into their calculations.
Any description of these houses can be easily forwarded to any part of the United States; and for Foreign Markets they offer special advantages; for, while they can be adapted to any climate or use, no other building has been devised that can be packed into so small a space, and is capable of so easy transportation. Those shipped to the West India Islands are provided with lattice windows instead of glass, insuring light and air while open in daytime, and security when closed at night. any pattern of building will be made to order on receipt of a clear and comprehensive description of the building desired.
Partitions for any kind of buildings can be provided, with or without doors or windows, single or double; they can be introduced at pleasure -- when the house is set up, or at any subsequent time.
Particularly attention is directed to the fact that any single section of a building may be applied to any other building of the same height; thus, should a section be broken or lost, it may be easily replaced. Sections are furnished to order with windows or doors, or solid: thus for porches, bay windows, or other purposes....
Indeed, so admirable is the ventilation of these buildings, that doors and windows may be permanently closed, and the air within will remain as pure as that without. It is evident that this greatly enhances their value for dwellings.
FOR THE VARIOUS PURPOSES OF AN ARMY these buildings are unrivaled. As barracks for soldiers; Hospitals, store-houses, &c., they are unequaled both for comfort and convenience when set up, and ease of transportation. To prove that they are Portable we have but to state a single fact: within a few weeks a number of these houses have been set up in Washington City, by United States Authorities, for the use of the army. As the troops have changed their location, several of them have been taken down, removed, and set up the third time, without injury or inconvenience; and, with ordinary care, they might be removed many times more without damaging them. As QUARTERS FOR SOLDIERS, officers of the regular army have pronounced them "unequalled."...."We could make our families very comfortable in them."
In the following pages will be found designs of these Portable Buildings. A design for Army Hospitals is inserted, showing outward, with the nurse's room and shore-room leading from it. Designs of buildings already in use on the Potomac, at Port Royal, Ship Island, and in the West India Islands are also introduced, as well as several for Seaside and country summer residences, barracks, store-houses, and carriage houses. We call attention to the design of a neat, unique, and very inexpensive chapel, a great desideratum for a small rural society.
These Sectional Buildings are of vast and varied utility, and the invention may justly be regarded as a great public benefaction. We could fill pages with the commendations of those who have seen them, but in presenting our Friends and the Public with the following designs and accompany descriptions, we obviate all necessity for recommendations; the convenience, utility, and immense value of our PORTABLE SECTIONAL BUILDINGS will be patent to all who carefully examine the following pages."

[JimKindred]

Re: If I may ...

Folks,

We have received a number of complaints about this thread over its life span. Please be courteous to each other and do not talk down to others when responding. Everyone here is at a different level in their progression in the hobby and a condescending attitude serves no one.

[Beth Crabb]

Re: If I may ...

[QUOTE=Citizen_Soldier;143713]

Beth Crabb wrote:

I also totally agree with Joe's thought here: "There is a suspension of disbelief required for reenacting. We don't use bullets or shrapnel, we don't all have lice, breastworks are usually "stick forts" that wouldn't stop spit, and age and weight must be ignored for the vast majority of participants.

Over the years I've seen this same approach used by mainstreamers to justify a number of unauthentic material culture and living history aspects of their hobby.

I too have seen both mainstream and authentics as well as museums use the suspension of disbelief approach.

Beth Crabb wrote:

I was replying to comments earlier in the thread, such as "It is very frustrating that so many adopt the "it's civilian so anything goes mentality" as I do not think too many of us on the AC have that viewpoint.

Many folks on the AC try very hard to have strong civilian impressions, however it becomes complicated as AC approved vendors sell incorrect items for The Rebellion period, such as post-war overalls or ring canteens.

Mr. Orwig this thread is not the place for discussion of items I sell. I believe it is a discussion of possible dwellings/buildings for civilians.

Beth Crabb wrote:

One gentleman seemed to imply that if an event did not have usable historic buildings, civilian reenactors should not be there.

Where was this implied?

Quote from other thread on portable buildings:
I would like to post more but time restraints refrain me from writing much additional information at this time. With my experience on the subject, I think it would be nearly impossible to authentically reconstruct a transportable civilian house to bring to living history events. My thoughts would be to use event venues that feature some sort of historical residence site already on the premises. Open air museums, historical societies, and house museums could all be possible options.

My point being what do folks do when the event is not held at an open air museum, historical society or house museum? While it is a fantastic opportunity when utilization of such places is possible (ie: Westville), there are many events with no buildings at all. My question is; what is the best option then? Tents? I think Hank did answer my question fairly well though. :D

[Drygoods]

Re: If I may ...

Mr. Kindred, and all others, I don't think that I used any condescending language, and if some think that I have, I beg your pardon. And I'd like to ask you folks here to favor me one last time with some opinions and ideas that are entirely my own, and not intended to be forceful or rude. However, I still think that if someone were in danger and had to move one's family to safety rather inexpensively, a portable house would have been a reasonable consideration.....mind you, this is MY opinion, not a fact that I can document with a name and location.
OK, from the catalogue source, I've mentioned their introductory card, what their sales pitch was and the likely people it was intended for, and perhaps the reason I've seen more of these houses and buildings here in the West is because many more of them were sold here, consequently more survived.
In regard to Mrs. Crabb's comments, I would agree that we within the hobby have to be willing to accept that although we cannot have everything exactly as it was, we all want to make our impression as accurate as possible yet not all be the same. Having everyone with the same exact impression isn't necessarily accuracy in history.
Having copied one of these houses and used it for over two decades, I can say that although not the most attractive abode, it did serve it's function quite well. It was documented and used in the location intended, and after a few years, others copied the idea and other building plans, the event site grew and was enjoyed by a larger number of participants, and more accurate interpretively. I know that some of those folks who saw and stayed in our portable house are rather hard core living history enthusiasts here, and might wish to comment about seeing portable houses, but I doubt that they shall as this conversation has gotten rather windy.
Civilians want the same hard core campaign experience, but not all of us can be a refugee or have rolling stock. My original reason for the portable house was that I had small children, and had to keep them safe, and now I find that I'm too old to campaign and sleep on the ground. Does that mean that I should quit the hobby, or simply invent a solution to justify my surprise house impression? No, but if I can provide proof that these buildings did exist, and the people who might have used them, it does offer me a different avenue of interpretation with historical accuracy, and that is what the hobby is all about, historical accuracy.
Do we need change in this hobby, something like this? Yes, we need to accept the fact that the same old thing isn't progressive. Consider how the hobby was ten or twenty years ago, and how it has improved in that time. Perhaps this discussion is the beginning of the acceptability that the housing for civilians is about to be improved. And it's about time too! Will everyone have a portable house? Heavens no. It's only an idea for the few, and the foolish willing to spend their children's college education fund, and strive to have the most extreme living history experience.:wink_smil

[LindaTrent]

Re: If I may ...

I still think that if someone were in danger and had to move one's family to safety rather inexpensively, a portable house would have been a reasonable consideration...

Why? I just don't see that as a period mindset at all. I think the mindset would be to take one's valuables and retreat to the home of family or friends, stay at an inn in the next town, or hide out in their cellar. But to have them sitting there saying, "Gee, if we only had a portable house..." Nope, I just don't see that.

You said in a previous post, "costs of these houses ranged in price from $125 to $275." Having looked at enough census records for various locations throughout the South I can assure you that for a large number of people that was a small fortune. Besides, most people already had a home, or were too poor to own one. A small permanent home could be built for about $125.

Now, if we want to speculate: Say it takes a couple months to order a portable home and have it delivered. That would mean that the people would need to know a couple months in advance that the army was coming. Are these poor refugees going to spend their life savings of $125 on a portable home when they don't even know if or when the war's going to come to them? Not to mention they'd be ordering from a NY company that probably wouldn't ship to the South once the war broke out. The whole thing's really moot anyway.

For California, by all means, if you actually read the articles that I sent in earlier you'll see quotes of how many homes were sent to California in a certain period of time, how many are backlogged, etc. But I will still stick to the research what was typical for your time, place and social status and then try to reproduce what was typical.

Linda.

[Drygoods]

Re: If I may ...

[QUOTE=LindaTrent;143737]Why? I just don't see that as a period mindset at all. I think the mindset would be to take one's valuables and retreat to the home of family or friends, stay at an inn in the next town, or hide out in their cellar. But to have them sitting there saying, "Gee, if we only had a portable house..." Nope, I just don't see that. QUOTE]

Well, the first name that jumps to my mind are the McClean's. They moved out at the first hint of danger. Plenty of Southern folks moved into Texas to avoid the battle areas, some sailed to Europe. Personally all my family, apart from my children, are dead so if it were me, I'd up and move away out of danger. And for instance if I had prior experience with seeing portable houses out west, I'd possibly consider one for an option of cheap housing. Again, let me say, that's just what I WOULD CONSIDER. I mean if I knew the battle was possibly going to pass by, and bummers would raid my house, I'd sure up and get my quality goods outta there. And yes, you're right Mrs. Trent it is a considerable cost, especially if it is an expence beyond one's means, and stardard of living. My family was Southern, although not poor prior to the war, but they sure had hard times after it was over and the house was raided.

As a debate, this thread has many challenges, there is no easy answer. Woulda/coulda/shoulda done can go in all directions, but these portable houses did exist and people knew about them, how many and often used is the real challenge.....as well as should we use them in impressions today? I don't know the answer.

It brings a past thought to mind, a memory if you will, after WW2 in Virginia and California, we saw many Army butler buildings and quonset huts everywhere, but where are they now? Gone.

Thank you Mrs. Trent, and all others, this is a wonderfully lively thread, and debate and conversation is what fuels this hobby into new ideas and directions of research. Bravo forum.:D

[Hank Trent]

Re: If I may ...

It's only an idea for the few, and the foolish willing to spend their children's college education fund, and strive to have the most extreme living history experience.:wink_smil

Out of curiosity, if the idea is to spend money for "the most extreme living history experience," then why necessarily select a portable house? Why not just build a reproduction of a functional period house, with foundation, land, outbuildings, and so forth?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Drygoods]

Re: If I may ...

[QUOTE=Hank Trent;143745] Why not just build a reproduction of a functional period house, with foundation, land, outbuildings, and so forth?QUOTE]Yeh, I've done that too.:wink_smil And it seems to be a growing idea as I know a few local places, rural and city, that do not have plumbing or electricity and are popular destination spots for those wishing to get away, ah, but I digress.

[PogueMahone]

Re: If I may ...

Mr. Orwig,

I'm curious. What events have you attended? Are there always period correct structures for you to inhabit at these events? If not, what option do you employ for overnight shelter?

What solution do you offer to the problem of "a lack of appropriate housing at Civil War reenactments for civilian participants"?

Clearly you don't care for the option being discussed here, so I'd like to know how you have solved the problem for yourself.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: If I may ...

I'm all for hearing solutions, too. :)

A short aside on "what displaced people do for housing"--those that refugeed to entirely new areas of the nation (Texas, Minnesota in my family's case) seem to be more likely to build a permanent home in the new location; for those who stay in the region, rented housing or rooming in with others is far less expensive than locating and purchasing new land, then ordering in a temporary dwelling at a decent expense.

The situations in the expanding West and East are radically different, and I don't see the utility of extrapolating Eastern use of things documented for the West... as others have said, some items can be documented for one use, but not the other.

(On the subject of temporary housing out West, boarding houses in particular: one arrangement I've come across in reading is the use of canvas roofs over wooden floors for tent-houses in early gold-mining situations. Actual built lodgings seem to follow pretty close on the heels of substantial strikes. The days of entirely portable towns (loaded with skids onto railway cars and moved down the lumber spur) are yet to come in the later century.)

Let's do try to stay topical:

What options were available to the Original Cast?
Can we replicate them?
If so, How?