PDA

View Full Version : A Dozen Inexpensive Ways to Improve Your Personal Impression: By Cal Kinzer


paulcalloway
02-04-2004, 07:13 PM
<CENTER>A Dozen Inexpensive Ways to Improve Your Personal Impression


By: Cal Kinzer

</CENTER>

Everyone thinks it costs big bucks to have a first-rate authentic soldier impression. However, there are a number of things any Reenactor can do to improve his impressionthat cost little or no money. Here are a dozen examples:
(1) Get a haircut

Both army regulations and contemporary photographs confirm that hair was kept short bysoldiers. The idea that the Rebs wore long hair much like their "cavalier" ancestor isuntrue, except for a few cases very early in the war. Problem with cleanliness and lice inthe field made short hair a must. Don’t be misled by the photographs of high-rankingofficers. Their hair was probably longer than that of the men under their command. Civilian hair styles were shorter for the younger generation during the 1860’s than theywere among the older folks, many of whom still had longer hair from the 1840’s or before. By the same token, long beards were probably uncommon for the same reasons. Mostphotos taken in winter quarters show the majority of the men with no beards at all. Mostlikely, beards, if worn, would be of the shorter variety and would be worn out of necessityduring active campaigning when shaving was an impossibility. Most Civil War soldiersseem to have enjoyed shedding their summer growth of facial hair when they settled downto winter quarters.

(2) Lose some weight

I don’t agree with the lady who is suing the Park Service because they won’t let herparticipate as a soldier - but she is right about one thing. Reenactors as a group aregrossly overweight. (Comes from munching Pringles while reading the latest Civil Warbook!) your uniform will never look right if you’re more than 10-15% overweight. Notall Civil War soldiers were bean poles, but fat ones didn’t last very long - especially in thecombat arms.

(3) Lose your hat insignia

Kurt Holman pretty much said it all in his article ("Insignia Of The Common UnionSolder", CCG, March, 1991). If you want to look like a real soldier, one of theeasiest way to achieve it is to remove all insignia (bugle, corps, badge, etc.) form yourheadgear. Bugles were not even regulation for forage caps. Many Reenactors may alsobe surprised to learn that bugles and the side eagle plate were not issued with the Hardeehat. They had to be requisitioned separately. Once the war got going, soldiers rarely didso unless they were on special guard detachments behind the lines.

Feathers are also wrong. I have yet to see any original photo of a field soldier wearingone. Hat cords were worn sometimes on Hardees, but since they also had to be obtainedseparately, probably not that much. The only ornamentation that came on the Hardee hatwhen it was issued was a 1.2" black ribbon which formed a small bow on the left side. The best way to go by far is to have a plain hat or forage cap. Take a long, hard look atyour headgear. Nothing will make your impression like a good, correctly-styled hat. Nothing will ruin an otherwise good impression faster than a poor choice of headgear. Even though a hat may be historically correct, this still does not mean it is the right hat foryou. Victorian men were very particular about their headgear. Soldiers were no different. Hats during the period had a definite shape and style. There were none of the shapeless(hillbilly) hats you so often see at reenactments. A hat should have a hatband and shouldnot be too "floppy." Wearing a droopy hat is probably the most common mistake made byReenactors.

(4) Burnish that Enfield

Several years ago some of the boys in my unit got into a discussion about whether periodEnfields were burnished. After looking at scores of photographs and examining everyoriginal we could find that was documented as being issued, we came to the conclusionthey definitely were not. In fact, I have yet to see a period photograph of a bluedEnfield. (If anyone has one, I’d like to see it!) Yes, the Brits did blue their metal, but thetype of bluing they used didn’t last long. It quickly wore off when the weapon wascleaned. American arms had traditionally been burnished and there is no reason to believethat US and CS officers made any distinction in this area with regard to foreign-madeweapons. The argument that you will have to clean the weapon if the bluing is removedwon’t wash. It’s either authentic or it’s not - the choice is yours.

(5) Burn those gaiters!

It seems like every once in a while sutlers come up with some off-the-wall item which isspecially designed to farb up an otherwise decent impression. Such is certainly the casewith the current craze for gaiters. Yes, they had them. Yes, they can be documented. Yes, there are pictures of soldiers wearing them. But they look STUPID! This isprecisely the reason why most Civil War soldiers got rid of theirs as quickly as they could. It’s another of those questions of what was typical. A typical soldier in the field, after thefirst few months of the war, wouldn’t be caught dead with such a silly and uselessitem.

(6)Wear full gear

There is a myth in the reenactment community that soldiers habitually dropped theirknapsacks and blanket rolls on going into battle. It is the result of a few early waraccounts (or accounts of assaults on fortified positions) in which this was done. (If youread farther in these same accounts, you almost always find that those who dropped theirknapsacks or blanket rolls almost always later regretted having done so.)

Veteran soldiers quickly learned that they would have urgent need of the dry clothing,blankets, and food contained therein once the battle was over - and who was to say thatthey wouldn’t be miles from where they started when the fight was over. The wagonsneeded to carry knapsacks became fewer as the war progressed and the armies cut backon transport. Knapsacks aren’t bad if you pack them right and don’t overload them. They’re much cooler than blanket rolls. There is plenty of documentation on their use inbattle for those willing to hunt for it.

(7) Take mind of the season

If you are a Federal, try leaving your frock coat or shell jacket home during summerevents. They are simply too hot for summer use. The sack coat was virtually universalduring the hot months. It is likely that the shell jackets worn by Rebs during the summerwere also unlined. On the other hand, it appears that soldiers did switch over to frocks orshell jackets during the winter, at least in some cases, especially if overcoats were notreadily available.

(8) Hike up your traps

When you see a Reenactor with his haversack and canteen swinging down near his knees,it’s a sure bet he’s never marched in his gear any farther than the distance from the campto the parking lot. Veteran campaigners soon learned that your traps ride a lot better, anddon’t beat the dickens out of your legs, if you shorten up the straps so that they ride fairlyhigh. Don’t make the mistake of simply tying the straps up shorter, however. This is adevice invented by Reenactors for which there is no documentation so far as I know. Ifyou shorten up your straps, do so by sewing them the desired length. Nothing looksworse than seeing a soldier with a big knot of canteen strap on his shoulder.

Similarly, the waistbelt and cartridge box should be worn high up - around the truewaist - not on the hips (which we modern folks consider to be the waist). Mostcommercially made haversacks and canteens seem to come equipped with straps madeform Michael Jordan. But when you look at the pictures, you will see the original soldierswearing them up high and out of the way.

(9) Use your "biled" shirt for a gun rag.

Another atrocity which has been fostered on the unsuspecting Reenactor by so-called"sutlers" who care more about profits than for authenticity is the "biled shirt". This is theubiquitous which linen shirt which you see most Reenactors wearing. Once again, a quickcheck of period photographs reveals that most civilian shirts were colored (soldiers, prints,or checks) and that most were either muslin, wool, or a heavier cotton. Federals(especially in the East) seem to have worn the issue woolen shirt (even in the summer). There is one account of a burial detail at Gettysburg. They could tell the dead Federalsfrom the Rebs because the Feds were all wearing the off-white woolen Army-issue shirt(and this was in July!) As a general rule, colored shirts or off-white woolen or muslinshirts are far more authentic than the white linen shirts being worn by most Reenactorstoday.

(10) Lose the sweat-band

In spite of an absolute lack of documentation, many Reenactors insist on wearinghandkerchiefs on their heads as sweat-bands. This makes us look ilke a bunch of 60’sradicals or Kung-Fu experts. Does it follow that since Civil War soldiers hadhandkerchiefs they would have used them in this way? Not necessarily. Standards ofpersonal looks are different now. As near as I can tell, the practice of wearing headbandswas something we borrowed from Asia during the Vietnam War. It would have beenforeign to the thinking of 19th Century people. If it can’t be documented as beingwidespread, it doesn’t belong.

(11) Un-blouse those socks

To many, this will seem like heresy. After all, everyone knows that Civil War soldierstucked their trousers in their socks. Right? Well, maybe in some cases and in certaincircumstances. One thing is for certain, it is incorrect to do so on formal occasions (suchas guard duty, drill, dress parade, etc.) Nor does one see photographs (most of whichwere taken in camp during winter quarters) of soldiers with their pants tucked in theirsocks.

In the field, it might have been done by some. However, my personal experience hasbeen that (1) it lets small seeds, dirt clods, and pieces of gravel down in your brogans, (2)it’s hotter in the summer, and (3) it stretches out and eventually ruins your socks.

A good rule of thumb is that trousers should never be bloused in camp, on the drillfield, or on dress occasions. On the march or on the battlefield it is more acceptable,although still probably not the practice by the majority. If you’re a little on the heavy side,by all means don’t blouse your trousers. It only accents your weight and makes you looklike a top!

(12) Acquire the "plain nondescript" look

One strongly suspects that many Reenactors wear frilly, colorful, or even outlandish gearand insignia for all the wrong reasons - to be noticed in the crowd or to call attention tothemselves. This is precisely the thing you don’t want to do if there are people shooting atyou! The most important rule to remember if you are looking to improve your impressionis that combat soldiers are infinitely practical men. The veterans made a real fetish oftraveling light and they did their best to rid themselves of anything which was superfluousor unnecessary to the everyday necessities of life in the field. As the war progressed, even their officers came to recognize that practicality made formore efficient armies. Most veteran troops would have laughed at some of the ridiculousthings worn by modern Reenactors: feathers, brass insignia, gaiters, etc. The best way toget that "look" for which we are all striving is to try to appear as plain as possible. AsGeneral Sherman said, "The longer the war goes on the less our men look like soldiers andthe more they look like common day laborers". By the second year of the war, theveterans on both sides had discarded the finery of the early period, adopted very plain andfunctional dress, and had settled down to the grim business of survival.

[edit. This article was originally hosted on the Bully Boys website and is posted here with their permission. - PC]

Vuhginyuh
02-04-2004, 08:06 PM
My dad and some other great early ''campaigner'' type guys offered this same advice to some NC ''mainstreamers'' 15 years ago and they were summarily scorned, ignored, or chased off. The boys just said "we did'nt like being talked down to by them know-it-alls''. I'm serious.

It seem's to me that dad and the old fellows still get that same reaction to their views today...

JimKindred
02-04-2004, 09:05 PM
I have known Cal since the late 70's and I have always been proud to call him a friend. His advice given here in one form or another has been around at least that long. Too many in the campaigner movement think they are on to something relatively new but they aren't. This struggle for authenticity has been going on for as long as many of them have been alive.

Equipment and clothing have changed tremendously over years unfortunately in many cases the attitude and the desire is what is lagging behind. Years ago you were limited by both your attitude and gear but now with all the improvements it is only the approach to the hobby and the attitude that hold people back.

Take what Paul has posted here and use it if you haven't already, you will find your impression improved greatly with no monetary investment.

markj
02-04-2004, 10:01 PM
Hi,

Nothing personal towards Mr. Kinzer but, frankly, a significant portion of his writeup appears to be, to put it charitably, "debatable." Let me pick just three items of his to discuss:

Regarding (3) hat brass, etc., please throw me a bone. I'm not sure what Cal means by his hat brass comments. I haven't read the article he references but I would likely take issue with some of it. Circumstances, of course, varied, but Indiana troops sure as heck were issued hat brass, numerals, eagles, etc. when available. Why do I know this? Take a look at 1st Sergeant James F. Cantwell, Company G, 80th IVI:

http://www.80thindiana.net/80webste.htm

In fact, an 84th Indiana QM-issue listing I found at the Indiana Historical Society, dated September 1862, also specifically states that hat brass was concurrently issued to the regiment, along with its uniforms, before it deployed. Another, unpublished, c.1862 image of two men in Company I, 32nd (1st German) Indiana that I just received today shows at least one of them wearing the letters "32" on the front of his forage cap as well as a badge of some kind directly above the numbers. Doing this was actually close to what Para. 1521 of the Army Regulations actually stated (i.e., company affiliation was to be designated by "yellow metal letters in front"). The 1865 report of Indiana QMG Asahel Stone also flatly states that small quantities of "Bugles, Hat," "Bands and Tassels," "Eagles," and "Feathers" were even issued to Indiana Legion (state militia) units.

As stated above, "Bugles" were indeed "not regulation" but this was simply a case of the Regulations not keeping up with widely adopted "de facto" custom. There was plenty of confusion and dissatisfaction when it came to the Regulations as they existed: indeed, I've found at least two published letters bitching about the significant disconnects between "what was said" and "what was done." Using Kinzer's observations as starting point, I would argue that a slavish adherence to the Regs by reenactors is, in my view, almost as bad as "farbidity" since enlisted men and commanders at times had to finesse and make up things as they went along where there was no guidance. Therefore, it seems apparent to me that, in the case of hat/cap brass, troops logically adapted the provisions of Paras. 1515 and 1516 (dealing with officer and enlisted hat brass) for forage caps as circumstances required. Period images of New Hampshire troops regularly show their caps adorned with bugles, company letters, and regimental numerals. The bottom line is that, when it came to hat brass, some troops wore it constantly, others never did, and many of their commanders didn't care one way or another.

Lastly, Kinzer's comment about looking like "a real soldier" struck a nerve with me. How, precisely, do we define "looking like a real soldier?" I'm sure those troops in nearly-spotless Heavy Artillery frock coats who marched to almost certain death at Cold Harbor considered themselves to be just as much "real soldiers" as the the crustiest privates in the Army of the Cumberland. I guess we have to be really careful about "projecting" our sensibilities on people who lived 140 years ago. They were similar to us in many ways yet, in others, completely different. And what constitutes a "real soldier" to us may not have been to them. If I'm missing Cal's point, then I apologize in advance.

Regarding (4) "burnishing of Enfields," Geoffrey Walden would undoubtedly take issue with him, as per his on-line article, having personally examined hundreds of original Enfields. Stripping bluing from rifles was indubitably practiced...but it wasn't UNIVERSALLY practiced as Mr. Kinzer infers. This charming little custom, for what I've read, even varied from regiment to regiment within brigades.

As for (6) "wearing knapsacks into battle," Mr. Kinzer's conclusions are, again, highly debatable to put it kindly. I'm not sure if he looked very deeply into the "Official Records" or other period documentation: I did this myself about a year ago and discovered at least 60 different AAR's alone in the "OR" specifically mentioning that packs were either dropped before going into action or simply left behind on wagons in the rear. The dates and locations of these reports varied widely so "dropping packs" was NOT an "early-war thing" and the size of the sample indicates it was a common habit. Troops certainly did, on occasion, wear their knapsacks into battle (as shown in that famous photo of Confederate dead by the Hagerstown Turnpike at Antietam) but that doesn't mean it was universally practiced. If your First Sergeant, Captain, and Colonel all tell you to "drop packs," and rounds are zipping over your head, what are you going to do? Argue with them?

Mr. Kinzer's piece does contain interesting and useful information and, again, I want to make clear that my comments are not personal in any way, shape or form. However, I would submit that Mr. Kinzer's piece relies a lot more on "opinion" and "feelings" than documented sources. I would posit that the overall picture is a lot more complex than we all would initially think.

Respectfully,

Mark Jaeger

paulcalloway
02-05-2004, 02:10 AM
However, I would submit that Mr. Kinzer's piece relies a lot more on "opinion" and "feelings" than documented sources
Mark -
That's why we put this article in the Editorial section rather then the Research section. As the section description states, this is Heavy on Opinion.

7thNJcoA
09-20-2007, 12:27 PM
when it comes to the gaiters..... You really need to research your unit to find out about how long they lasted. Paul is correct in saying that most units would dump this calf wrappers in a heart beat; however I know of two units the 6th and 7th NJ that wore thier gaiters all the way unitil the fall of 63' which at that point were scraped mainly becuase no fresh supply was available to the new soldiers coming in. They are indeed a great item for that early war impression for a unit that was know to wear them. When you hit an 1863 and later event they should be indeed as Paul states burned! This is inded a debatable article but the points are well made and the article is well placed in the editorial section! My point I always make to people in the hobby is the plain soldier impression and the short hair! I see as many of you have those ponytail hippies and the guys with more brass and exotic items. The simple fact is when you put gear in your pack, put in on and jump up and down if its too heavy you wont want to march with it! There are great aricles out there as well as first hand accounts on how to PACK A KNAPSACK in period fashion ECSP the federal double bag. Take note the straps on top can be used for a blanket but are meant for the great coat the blanket goes with your shelter half inside.

Beaner
09-20-2007, 01:35 PM
I'm going to chime in here also. You may want to look photos of the Iron Brigade. There is brass on their Hardee's, gaiters over their shoes, and their diaries and journals state they dropped their packs at the Luthern Seminary on the way to Mc Pherson's Ridge at Gettysburg. The 24th Michigan were required to wear their Gaiters, Hardee's with Brass and feathers by their commander. I agree the 2nd Wisc. dropped the brass and gaiters prior to Gettysburg, but, saying dropping all this to improve your impression is just another reenactorism. I would recommend doing proper research concerning the unit you wish to portray and then decide how to fill out your kit.
Dave Prince
4th Texas Co. E.

7thNJcoA
09-20-2007, 01:42 PM
I agree with you here That is what I said in my post. You need to research YOUR unit as much as possible! But this thread is in the editorial section which is heavy on opinion so as much research is not required. If this was in the reseach section it would be a diffrnet story but it is well placed here!

Craig L Barry
09-20-2007, 03:28 PM
Mark Jaeger is right on the money as far as he went, charitable in fact. It is interesting how cyclical the conventional wisdom is in the hobby. For my part, I just wish Cal had recommended retro-verting (to borrow a Curt-Heinrich Schmidt term) those Enfields by making some historical feature improvements to them vs "burnishing the metal parts".

Overall though, there is some good common sense advice mixed in with all the rest.

Rick Keating
09-20-2007, 05:12 PM
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in much of Mr. Kinzer's research as it is, as Paul pointed out, opinion heavy.

While he may be correct on a lot of points there are the units like 2nd Wisconsin, 24th Michigan and others that shoot his theories right in the posterior.

One thing I've discovered in 24 years in the hobby is... there are no absolutes! The other replies in this thread point that out quite succinctly. I think the evidence is available for us in the surviving photos, relics, museum displays, diaries, etc.

One thing I've enjoyed over the years is always being able to learn something new. "A Dozen Inexpensive Ways to Improve Your Personal Impression" is no substitute for research, research, research.

Rick Keating

paulcalloway
09-20-2007, 05:25 PM
This was cutting edge stuff about 15 years ago. It's here more out of nostalgia than anything else.

HOG.EYE.MAN
09-20-2007, 07:26 PM
Guys,

This is basically an example of how to set yourself apart from the mainstream as a generic authentic, without specific unit research. We all know how un-authentics dress at mainstream reenactments, so this should not be a big surprise. When Cal wrote this, he was not referring to EBUFU events with heavy unit research. I would say this is a "how to" for the progressive reenactor, plain and simple.

I think his basic point still holds true today, and is good advice for a generic reenactor.

YoungCampaigner
12-17-2007, 06:40 PM
Hello All. I think that the fundimental facts in Mr. Kinzer's article were very good. However, there were several things that I did not like about his article. First of all, Mr. Kinzer makes far too many generalizations. It just doesn't make any sense to say that ALL soldiers got rid of their gaiters before the middle of the war. Just like today, nobody's tastes and preferences are the same. If some gent thought that gaiters looked good on him and were useful, he would have kept them until they wore out.

The other thing that bugs me about Mr. Kinzer's article is that he says several times that something looks bad. Yes, gaiters may look bad, but if they are authentic, that is more important. People thought differently about how things looked in the 1860's than they do now. It sounds like Mr. Kinzer is saying what looks good or bad by today's standards. Please forgive me if I am wrong. I may just be misunderstanding the meaning of Mr. Kinzer's words.

cap tassel
12-17-2007, 07:18 PM
"I have yet to see a period photograph of a bluedEnfield. (If anyone has one, I’d like to see it!)" - Cal

Cal's the type of guy I avoid. ;)

RJSamp
12-18-2007, 11:55 AM
#13 LEARN THE BUGLE CALLS and utilize a bugler at all events.

Bob 125th NYSVI
02-21-2008, 08:19 PM
We may want to revise part of this. At least for eastern Federals.

CRRC2 makes a fairly persuasive argument for the use of some hat brass and corp badges. Their documentary eveidence seems to support that a majority of the soldiers ahd something (although definitely) not everything on their hats.

The secret is to have appropriate stuff on your hat for the scenario. It really isn't that expensive to have multiple Corp badges of company letters or even regimental Numbers for your hat.

bda0001
04-11-2009, 04:42 PM
Obviously everyone has there own opinions and each unit there own practices, but I think the last point of the non-descript soldier is an excellent point. This is a great place for one to start on a better impression for free.

Chip
04-28-2009, 12:28 PM
I'm fairly new to this forum but not new to living history, etc.

From my point of view, you honor the men you are portraying by dressing and acting appropriately for a particular window in time. In many cases you have enough photos, diaries, letters, equipment issue documentation, etc. to establish what most of the men would have been wearing and thinking about for any given time and place.

I sometimes stop and ask myself what the original members of my regiment would think of my/our portrayal of them... Would they feel honored or disgraced?

How many of us feel confident enough to be able to go back in time and fall-in without anyone being able to notice us? What would give us away?

Just some thoughts...
Chip U.
21st OVVI
SCAR

sf46
07-09-2009, 09:25 AM
Despite the disagreements of some about a few of the points in the article, I found it to have a lot of useful information, overall.

Old Reb
07-09-2009, 02:12 PM
I know Cal. I have fallen in with Cal. He is a bit quirky but a right good fellow even though once at a dog and poney show in Oklahoma he got all bent out of shape about my boys possibly drawing rammers. Like Paul said, it is a journey tinged with nostalgia to read what old Cal wrote. Read it as coming from one of the old timers that helped move the hobby forward even if you don't agree with what he wrote. By the way, Cal is still alive.

Gallinipper
07-09-2009, 04:34 PM
As I recall, one of the funnier things about that article (if it's the same one I'm thinking about) was the photo of his pards, and they were committing about half of those "violations" he had previously mentioned. No doubt, Cal served where he was needed!

I still have that CCG issue around here somewhere, from the good ol' days of bloused trows. May have to dig it up again, for a dose of nostalgia.

10TnVI
07-09-2009, 05:02 PM
Yes-I met him a couple of weeks ago on a dark Friday night at Brice's Crossroads-he dropped by our camp in search of Beasley's bunch-don't know if he ever found them, but didn't see him the rest of the weekend. Of course, Beasley's tale is already well discussed.

Hairy Nation Boys
07-09-2009, 05:04 PM
Nope you have two articles mixed up. The article you are refering to was written by Steve Olsson and Jeff Boorom. Both Hairy Nation Boys. The one part is about going to root beer stands. Now this was before EBUFU, AC any of that was ever thought of. For years we were blamed for ruining events because of our impression. We even shake at heads at some of the article. But we were young. There were only a handful of people doing what we were doing at that time.
Just so you know we stopped going to root beer stands about 1995. But Little Johns root beer was damn good! :tounge_sm

Cal is a friend of mine. He will be at Lost Tribes. The article was written way before the authentic movement took root. Days when the Mudsills were eating young. :wink_smil

My family and I just moved to a new home. I found the journal I use to keep about activities with the 12th Iowa. (My old unit) I had to laugh about how worried I was when I decided to go campaign style. The year 1994. Was I perfect? No I was not. But I continued to work on my impression as did my pards.

I think we owe people like Andrew Goode, Paul McKee, Scott Cross, John Wedeward, Cal Kinzer , Darius Walker a lot of credit for what they did 15,20 and 25 years ago. Without their guidance the authentic side would not be where it is today. (I am sorry I am not familiar with eastern people or confederate re-enactors from the old days)

Many people are quick to poke fun at what was written or how things were done years ago.

Gallinipper
07-09-2009, 05:45 PM
The article I'm referring to was definitely written by Cal. It appeared in CCG sometime around '92 or '93 or so. I just didn't know if there was another, perhaps revised, one which may have appeared sometime at a later date.

I also remember seeing him on one of the covers, and thinking how good his impression actually looked.

Hairy Nation Boys
07-09-2009, 05:50 PM
Oh. Well our article was good and bad. Very much mid 1990's.


Take care,

Gallinipper
07-09-2009, 06:14 PM
Don't you worry Nate, we'd heard of you boys too.... :D

(That root beer was pretty decent. It was guys turning their bottles into makeshift canteens that I couldn't stand!)

Hairy Nation Boys
07-09-2009, 06:31 PM
Oh, we didn't do that. Thank GOD!

Holler

Pennvolunteer
07-09-2009, 08:03 PM
I have to agree with Tom. I know Cal, and count him as a friend, and while he may have some eccentricities, don't we all? From knowing him, he is very knowledgable, thorough, and documents all that he says and does. So, from knowing him and falling in with him several times, I have to think that he certainly wrote this for some progressive folks trying to improve their impressions as mentioned by someone earlier. I remember reading this before I knew Cal, and thought it had some great advice. But it is, an editorial.

Old Reb
07-10-2009, 10:48 AM
I also know Holler and have fallen in with him and Cal was there, so I got a double dose of quirky.:)

PogueMahone
07-10-2009, 12:50 PM
I think some perspective needs to be given here. Paul states early in this thread that Cal's article is posted as "nostalgia" more than current advice. I have seen some version of this in writing since about 1980, so those that say this goes back 15 years ago are only scratching the surface.

When I started reenacting, 1976, men like Gatlin, Hudson, Elmore, Guffey and a few others were pushing authenticity among western CS units. On the other side of the field were the Mudsills, which Cal was a part of along with guys like Brian Baird and Tom Rock. Cal even eventually came to be a member of the group I was in back then, Cleburnes. The hallmarks of an authentic CS impression in the mid-70's was wearing a wool uniform, carrying a three-band musket and using Hardee's drill. Recruits were given all the cautions Cal put on paper. It was a consensus position at the time.

So, when people read this today, they want to disagree with it because there has been tremendous research and education since the early '80's. Taken in context of its origins, it was simply good generic advice to any reenactor who wanted to look more authentic at any given event. There was no cph side of the hobby, we only one circuit of events and 300 people total at an event was considered pretty good sized until the North/South 2 filming and the 125ths.

So, let's all back up from the criticism a bit and acknowledge that this bit of writing is essentially the cph hobby's "Dead Sea Scrolls". It is OUR history, not Civil War History and it is a source document that helped propel some folks on to do bigger and better things and greater research. It deserves to be remembered for what it was then, not the limitations it presents now.

And, Cal Kinzer is a good guy. I've known him for probably 25 years now. Here is a photo of me, Cal and Jim Butler at officer's mess during the 2005 Shiloh event:
http://www.geocities.com/saltriverrifles/Shilohofficers.jpg

Old Reb
07-10-2009, 12:55 PM
Joe,
I apologize for not mentioning you when I was speaking of Holler and Cal being quirky. You indeed fit that description and should have been mentioned with equal weight.

While folks are rattling the bones of the ancient ones that helped bring a segment of this hobby out of the dark ages, I throw out the name Jack King. Old Jack organized RRI and RRII. He believed in using period logistics and keeping his camps away from the streamers and basing things on historic documentation rather than personal whim.

Gallinipper
07-10-2009, 02:14 PM
And, Cal Kinzer is a good guy. I've known him for probably 25 years now. Here is a photo of me, Cal and Jim Butler at officer's mess during the 2005 Shiloh event

Nice shot, Joe! Sure would hate to tangle with that bunch. A Tennessee event in April without mud?? Imagine that.....

PogueMahone
07-10-2009, 02:17 PM
Tom,

"Quirky" is not something I've heard before to describe me, but I'll take it.

I'll second you on Jack King. For the 125th Manassas event, Jack convinced the 10 best, most authentic CS groups in the west/south to organize into a single battalion for the event, something that had never been done to my knowledge. We would portray the 7th Louisiana. We registered through Jack and each man got a canvas haversack, canvas gaitors, cotton havelock, Pelican belt buckle and a star/crescent badge. All the companies he had engaged at that time were wearing the same cadet grey jacket from Jarnagin. Each man wore Federal issue sky blue trowsers. As a battalion, we were uniform.

He put together a color guard with men from several of the larger companies and they carried two hand painted silk flags, a first national and a pelican. He recruited a full brass band to march with us for the entire event.

Jack organized an Amtrak special car that started out in the west, maybe even California, and picked up folks as it passed through the south, arriving at Manassas Junction the day or so before the event. Several of us drove up and met the train and the battalion camped in the park across the street from the train station. We had dress parade, guard mount and orders of the day. The next morning the battalion marched 9 miles to the event site, with the band playing Dixie as we marched away from the train station. Jack had even arranged for some church group to feed us lunch along the march route at a school. I recall filling my canteen from a shower head in the boy's locker room and then dipping my upper body into the freshly filled pool to cool off.

When the battalion arrived at the event site, we halted, all the officers brushed their uniforms, put on gloves, etc. Each man buttoned up tight and our lines were dressed. We marched into camp with the band in front playing The Marseilles and came over a rise to see the largest camp we'd ever seen and then to realize the entire camp had just seen the coolest battalion they'd ever seen. We were so uniform that for the rest of the weekend people would point and say "There's one of them fellers that marched in with the band and all that."

Good times. Good memories.

Jack broke new ground all the way around with that event.

PogueMahone
07-10-2009, 02:18 PM
Rich,

I'm the one buttoned up in the back. That is Jim Butler with his jacket open.

Gallinipper
07-10-2009, 02:23 PM
Joe, I see three Yanks and you all look like clothes thieves to me! :D

Cal Kinzer
07-10-2009, 05:07 PM
Dear Friends:

Well, I reckon it is about my turn to chime in here. I never cease to be amazed at how this OLD article, written almost twenty years ago, seems to get dusted off and resurrected from time to time. Why bring it back now, Paul? Is it a SLOW NEWS DAY?

By the way, it is indeed true that I am STILL ALIVE. I just thought everyone would like to know that! As to the charge that I am a bit "quirky" - well, I guess I shall have to plead guilty on that one - to which everyone who knows me, especially my wife, will certainly attest!

Seriously though, I do not necessarily hold with everything I wrote way back then, any more than anyone else probably would the views they held that long ago. There has been a lot of research done since, and our take on what is or is not authentic has changed a quite a lot - as it should! If my views and personal impression had progressed that little over such a long period of time, then I would be a pretty poor reenactor.

As a historical document, "Twelve Ways..." may have some relevance. At the time, it did seem to have helped nudge the hobby forward a little. If nothing else, perhaps it achieved its basic purpose, which was to encourage reenactors to begin thinking of authenticity as more than just buying higher quality reproductions, but rather the entire range of methods and applications involved in more accurately recreating the Civil War soldier.

But it should not be taken as state-of-the-art, especially with regard to what the members of the h/c/p side of the hobby and readers of this forum are doing today. You are achieving things that go far beyond anything of which we "old-timers" could have dreamed 20, 30 (or, in my case, nearly 40!) years ago. My hat is off to you!

I would like to thank those who jumped into the discussion in my defense. One of the most rewarding things about reenacting is the good friendships one makes, and the wonderful individuals you come to know and respect, - and who know and respect you. When fine men and topnotch historians like Nathan Hellwig, Frank Siltman and Joe Smotherman think enough of you to say what they did, that is no small thing, and a great honor!

For those who may be shy about contributing to the growth of authenticity, or who may be fearful of the criticism that will inevitably result, let me encourage you not to be overly concerned. In the old days, authentics fought against everything from two-banded muskets to modern tents to motorcycle boots. At every step of the way, they faced heated, and often unkind and unfair opposition from those who claimed that they were unreasonable and intolerant. But, over a long period of time, most among the silent majority came to see the truth of what they had to say, and gradually the cause of higher quality, and greater seriousness and professionalism, was moved forward - inch by inch!

Reenacting is more than a hobby. Pastimes such as stamp collecting, building model airplanes, or tending a garden are ends unto themselves, and carry no particular higher connotations. But ours is a greater calling, and involves a responsibility to accurately recreate some of the darkest, most important days of our nation's past. Therefore, we have an obligation to do it right, and to the best of our abilities. We owe this to history, to the memory of those we represent, to our fellow Americans - and to ourselves!

Cal Kinzer