Blousing of trousers

[PvtEasley]

Pards,

Under what circumstances would CW soldiers (particularly Federal) blouse their trousers (insert the cuff into their socks). Thanks,
-John Easley

[BrandonEnglish]

Try the search function, hope that helps:

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8420&highlight=blousing+trousers

[RN_PAC]

There is no real easy answer to that. It is probably easier to answer it from the perspective of when they pretty assuredly did not blouse them, such as during dress parade, guard mounting ceremony, or while on the guard in general. One thing is pretty clear to me: blousing was not particularly common, nor was it particularly uncommon. The soldiers themselves apparantly thought it was common enough to occasionally demonstrate it on monuments, post war illustrations by veterans, etc. I've even seen one studio photo of a Rhode Islander with his trousers bloused, probably the only such studio I have seen (saw it in a book in Williamsburg, VA). That was an interesting pic, because he was also wearing Hi-lows/trekkers as footwear, versus bootees. The fellow was in a short service regiment that never strayed "outside the wire" from D.C., so I figure he was trying to make himself look like a rugged veteran with that pic.

Part of the controversy about it stemmed from the 125th cycle, when everybody and his brother...including me...was doing it, sometimes even during the above functions. Then, the pendulum swung the opposite way, and the practice practically evaporated from more progressive events anyway, to the point where it seemed to me to be underrepresented.

I still do blouse them, from time to time; usually when the weather is colder, and when I want to keep my pant cuffs outta something. I may blouse and unblouse couple of times in the same day, depending on the situation. I suppose the old fellows kinda practiced it the same way.

[Andrew Kasmar]

Hi,

It would all come down to what you are portraying. When troops were on campaign, I am sure some of them bloused there trousers, others rolled them up, and other just sewed them up. But, while on garrison duty or winter camp, there is really no need to blouse your trousers or to roll them up. In any case, I would recommend you roll them up over blousing them. Only because, when you blouse your trousers, you can end up stretching the socks. Just my 2 cents.

Tom, do you happend to have the picture you talked about on your computer? If you do could you post it; I would be very interested in seeing it. Thanks

Andrew

[RN_PAC]

No, unfortunately I don't, and I have been kicking my butt ever since for not having tried to sneak a digital pic of the page with my camera at least. Every now and then I make a cursory search to see if I can find it, which I'll probably end up doing now since it came up again!

[WoodenNutmeg]

Maybe this would be a good time (or maybe it won't) to discuss gaitors and their place in all of this?

[LibertyHallVols]

Folks,
I'd like to challenge y'all to post some information not already contained in John Stillwagon's article (linked above). Otherwise, this thread might as well be shut down now.

Also, "because your socks will get stretched out" is not a valid reason to adopt/not adopt this practice.
(FWIW, I bloused my trousers at Outpost III for a while and they survived just fine - Yeah, I'm a vet of the "Buck-Twenty-Five's"... Well, one of 'em anyway)

[RN_PAC]

Also, "because your socks will get stretched out" is not a valid reason to adopt/not adopt this practice.


Ironically enough, I just recently read a soldier's accounting of the practice of blousing the trousers being employed to help keep the stockings up because in his/his comrades' particular experience, their stockings were of such a poor quality that they would not stay up on their own otherwise. Gonna have to dig around the library to find that citation; did a lot of reading travelling to/from Japan and I think it's in one of those tomes. However, gotta hit the road for a barber appointment, so it'll have to wait 'till at least later to-night.

[unclefrank]

You see it allot in period drawings and woodcut prints. It must of been common enough in the field to get the artists attention. Personally, I find it kind of uncomfortable, and hard on a pair of socks.

[tomarch]

As a practical matter, I regulary pull my socks over the legs of my underdrawers just to keep the ticks out, so far it has worked and you can't tell from the outside as my trowsers cover it up.

[KarinTimour]

Gentlemen:

How many accounts or depictions of blousing are Federal vs. Confederate soldiers?

As a sock maker, blousing is something that I've always discouraged. As others have noted, it drastically shortens the life of the ribbing that hold up your socks.

But what if you're wearing socks with no ribbing in the first place? I have yet to see any evidence of ribbing in Federal Issue Stockings, and my hypothesis is that the soldiers who primarily bloused were Federals.

But if you don't have any ribbing, how do they stay up when new? As many of you know, after researching these for a while, I made a stab at reproducing them. I always ask for feedback from my customers and they tell me that blousing them over drawers works fine for keeping them up your leg. These are guys who do serious marching -- ala Banks Grand Retreat. My suspicion is that after they've been bloused over drawers for a certain number of wearings, they'll need to be bloused over pantlegs to stay up without being tied up. When they were being worn daily, they probably hit that point in a matter of weeks or months. So far I haven't gotten any field reports of any of the current crop of reproductions hitting that point.

My two cents, your milage may vary,
Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

[flattop32355]

Karin,
Since we're weekend warriors instead of doing it as a steady job, our weeks/months are more like a couple years or more. I figure we're more likey to wear out the material of the sock at the ball of the foot faster than we're likely to see blousing needed to keep up the socks. Just my guess. It may or may not have been true for them, too.

[KarinTimour]

Dear Bernard:

Well, it depends. Keeping in mind that when Uncle Sam issued you a pair of socks, he took about a days pay (25-32 cents a pair) from you, that's considerable incentive for many soldiers to be darning socks or even shipping them home for refooting so as to avoid increased costs. If someone has a pair of refooted socks, the legs might be seriously much older and much more worn than the ball of the foot.

I've only been making the Federal issue stockings about a year and a half now, so they're probably far too new in the field to have much in the way of permanent blousing distortion yet.

And it's all experiemental. When I first saw Federal Issue Stockings had no ribbing, I had an "aha! that's why they bloused!" moment. Might have been a false assumption entirely.

Sincerely,
Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

[jake.koch]

I don't know how good of a source monuments may be, but if you look at a picture of the soldier swinging his rifle like a club on the Mississippi Monument at Gettysburg, he has his socks over his trousers and it looks as if they are tied to stay up with a piece of string or twine.

[ThehosGendar]

Hi Karin!

I haven't done an extensive study of LOC images, but, obviously 99% of those images show Federal soldiers so most photographic examples would be primarily Federal. I did pull up two quick examples, one Federal and one Confederate.

The Confederate image is LC-DIG-cwpb-02541, "Dead Confederate Soldier" in the Fort Mahone series. Of the Fort Mahone images, taken in April 1865, from what I could tell, there are 14 images, though 2 images are repeats, and 2 are of the same subject at different angles, I found only 1 soldier with his socks bloused.

The Federal image is just one out of several thousand, LC-DIG-cwpb-00260, "Manassas Junction, Va. Soldiers beside damaged rolling stock of the Orange & Alexandria Railroad." Anyone with some time on their hands would have a great project for publication to take a survey of images of Federal soliders, bloused v. unbloused!

I know it's not much, but I hope it helps!

Cheers!

[KarinTimour]

Wow to both of you!

Jake: I never noticed that about the Mississippi monument, and the very next time I'm there I'll go scope it out. I've been given one printed reference to Southern soldiers tieing their socks up their legs when the ribbing died, but that would be the first visual reference. I don't know enough about the history of the Mississippi monument -- when was it put up and were there veterans still alive? I'd like to believe they wouldn't just make something like that up as part of the "ragged Confederate" Lost Cause image, but you never know. In any case, it's not the first time I'd heard of it. But speaking of "things that are under-represented" I bet you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of reenactors who tie up their socks.....

Jason, I loved the pictures! The Federal is definately wearing Federal issue stockings -- no ribbing to speak of, and you can see how the edge is starting to give up the ghost -- it's rolling outwards and bagging, even though he's got his trousers stuffed in them.

The Confederate's definately not wearing confiscated Federal Issue ones -- you can clearly see the lines of ribbing on the top 2-2.5 inches of his socks, even though they are very stretched out. Also, the ribbing is the same color as the sock (or as well as I can tell from this picture).

Thank you both!
Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

[hoosiersojer]

About the only time I have bloused is when I have encountered heavy under brush or known areas of poison ivy/ stinging nettle/ ticks/ or other unsavory little characters. It is not a routine practice for me but on the occasion I have implemented this course of action, I was real glad I did ! :wink_smil

[LibertyHallVols]

Thanks, Jason! I was looking for the same picture (the Feds at Manassas on the O&A) to post yesterday!

Also, on the CS side, there are the artworks by AC Redwood giving several depictions of Confederates on campaign, most showing bloused trousers. Redwood was himself a Confederate veteran and would have known what was common practice and what wasn't.

[KarinTimour]

Dear John:

Thanks for the lead on images of Confederates who bloused, alwasy interested in more pictures, drawings, etc. of socks.

Ok, so the "mostly Federals bloused" theory seems to be disproven. I was thinking about the picture of the dead Confederate that Jason posted yesterday, and how much mud was on his shoe. If your trousers were too long for you and you'd rolled them up, and you were going to be marching through an area where there was a lot of mud, couldn't blousing also serve to keep down the amount of mud you'd have to drag with you? Granted it would still cling to the socks, but I'm theorizing, perhaps less so than if it had a nice cuff to collect in.

I also think Kevin's point is well taken -- blousing if you have to march through through poison ivy or stinging nettles or tick country would make sense.

Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

[LibertyHallVols]

Mr. Rice,

Forgive me if I misunderstand your point. However, it appears to me that you are making a broad claim that "trouser blousing" was a predominantly "Trans Miss" practice based solely on your experience as a reenactor in the 21st Century dealing with bugs on western side of the Mississippi.

Am I mistaken? Do you have any sources you can cite from the period to support this claim?

Personally, I believe that this practice was probably common, regardless of army or theatre of operations. Soldiers probably did it for a number of reasons, many of which we've yet to mention or discover ourselves. Bugs might be one explanation, but so might socks with little, no, or weakened elasticity at the top. Ever been walking with a sock bunched up under your foot? Not a comfortable situation.

In short, I think the explanation you propose is probably correct, but it is not likely the whole story, nor does likely it support the argument that it is a "predominantly Trans Miss practice".

... but then again
... maybe I'm all wet! :wink_smil

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

IMHO...
The "blousing" of socks will keep ticks from being able to climb up one's legs (it can be useless for some larval chiggers that are microscopic and small enough to pass through the weave of some fabrics) on the inside.

And, "blousing" exposes the tops of one's shoes to allow pebbles and bits of trigs and debris to fall inside to become a nuisance. As well as snow, ice, and mud.

;)

I have been wearing a pair of "unribbed" wool socks since 1986, their having been "bloused" according to the "Hardcore Fashion" of the mid to late '80's.
Although not perfect, I dealt with the stretched out tops by hot water laudering the tops to shrink them.

Curt

[KarinTimour]

Dear Curt:

See, this is why it's a real help to get feedback from those of you who are wearing brogans in the field. It makes sense now that I think about it that blousing would serve to streamline the pathway for debris, snow, etc. to get into your shoes. Never thought of it that way, but trousers serve as a sort of "porch roof" to deflect at least some of that from sliding inside one's shoes.

With regard to the "formerly ribbed" stockings you're using -- I was interested in your hot water shrinkage method -- did you just launder the tops in hot water, but not the rest of the sock? Did you fell them by switching from hot to cold and back or just put them in hot water and then let them dry? Did it take permanently, did you get the shrinkage you wanted, or do you have to repeat the process every time you wear them?

Thanks for the feedback on the blousing not working as mud-avoidance,

Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

[RN_PAC]

Here is a montage of pics I have "collected" over some time demonstrating blousing. Of course, for every one of these are 200 without blousing, but I thought they were interesting. I know of a couple of noteable examples I would love to add to this "collection"...the Rhode Islander I mentioned above, and another pic that I have seen identified as the 10th NY/National Zouaves (not sure how accurate that is) during one of their phases in Federal blue with a dude having his stockings hiked up almost to his knees (and I do believe they were ribbed, for what it's worth, although they certainly may have been privately procured)


Although not perfect, I dealt with the stretched out tops by hot water laudering the tops to shrink them.

Curt

That's what I do when the cuffs of sweaters strech out! Does seem to work half decently...

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"With regard to the "formerly ribbed" stockings you're using -- I was interested in your hot water shrinkage method -- did you just launder the tops in hot water, but not the rest of the sock? Did you fell them by switching from hot to cold and back or just put them in hot water and then let them dry? Did it take permanently, did you get the shrinkage you wanted, or do you have to repeat the process every time you wear them?'

Yes, I just hot water laundered just the tops, and let them dry.
No, the process never took "permanently" or perfectly, but I would guess they would stretch back out after 2-3 events.
What makes it hard, is that I stopped blousing about 12 years ago.

(The idea came to me from 18th century problems. The hand-woven over-the-knee wool stockings did the same, as did brain-tanned deerskin leggings from the repeated stretching of the knees from walking as well as kneeling around camp. (Nearly skin tight new leggings that took 10 minutes to peel on- would start to stretch out after just one outting).

IMHO, the practice of "blousing" on th emarch or in the field was one of those things some soldiers did, or did not do, based upon their druthers when it came to what they saw, what they heard or were told to do or try, and what worked or did not work for them based upon their personal experience between Fresh Fish and veteran Campaigner.

Curt

[hoosiersojer]

Just out of curiosity, why was my post deleted ? :confused:

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

I was browsing through my reference pictures and stumbled upon the Mississippi statue refered to..

While some argue that reenacting often imitates art, and not raising the discussion that art often can imitate life... here is the picture:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/Michael1787/miss2.jpg

Curt

[Corp. 77th PVI]

Got me wrong, was not saying it was predominantly a Trans-Mississippi practice. More that the conditions that would avail soldiers to blouse their pants inside their socks would be more prevalent in the West than the East as far as critters were concerned. Though I am also sure that soldiers in the East also did it out of necessity.

Soldiers are always practical people. The more you soldier, the more practicable you get. You got problems with bugs (ticks and red bugs), you blouse you pants inside the socks to keep them out. I got that from a Shelby Foote (will dig and see if I can find the citation…one of the things he talked about was how the Union Soldiers suffered horribly from the red bugs, which many had not encountered before). Got problems with the socks falling down, you blouse them or do anything to keep them up (even tie them up). I learned that in the modern Army on the first 20 mile march I went on (gosh I was young back then). You do what you have to do to keep going and if it works, you do it again, and if it doesn’t you don’t.

I was able to latch onto a pictorial history of the Civil War that I gave to my First Sergeant as an X-Mass present (looked through it first though). One of the things I noticed was that in most of the pictures, everyone was prim and proper, very staged. Well, of course they were. Having your picture taken was a big thing that you wanted to look your best for (or at least a bit closer to regulation anyway). But, in some of the pictures, the impromptu ones, it was very interesting. One was of the soldiers in an Iowa Infantry Regiment, boys just standing around their camp in the woods (pines trees is what it looked like). Some had brogans with the pant legs bloused inside their socks (and it was obvious they weren’t government issued socks either), others had pant legs out, some wore boots (looked like Artillery short boots) with the pant legs over them, and then there were a couple with the short boots that had the pant legs tucked in. So much for Army Regulations. But, the key was there was no uniformity in foot gear or having the pant legs bloused or not bloused. They were obviously on campaign; because no body would have willing pitched a camp in the heavy thicket they were in if they weren’t.

I have also read in the previous post of the soldiers having to pay for their replacement socks. By mid 63 if I am right, this would not necessarily be the case. If I remember correctly, Company Commanders (and Regiment Commanders for the entire Regiment) were able to authorize replacement uniform items at no cost to the soldiers because of the “rigors of combat”. Ergo, the beginning of the old “combat loss” in the supply system. I am sure some Commanders were diligent on this, as some probable didn’t care if their men were shod or barefoot or had to pay for everything (though I think the latter would have been weeded out by 63 though). When I was reading through Hardtack and Coffee, it is mentioned that socks were one of the things that soldiers always wanted to have sent from home because the government issue was so shoddy. And, after seeing some reproduction government issue, I can understand why. I know I looked at them and more or less went I sure ain’t marching all day long with those things on, I want to have feet left by the end of the day. Learned many lessons with 21 years in the modern Army, some of which I don’t have to repeat as a re-enactor to relearn. Also, in the history of the 154th New York (“The Hardtack Regiment”), it mentioned that halfway to Atlanta, the Regiment’s brogans and trousers gave out and they were issued cavalry trousers, new socks, and cavalry boots because that was what the Quartermaster could get his hands on. This would have been a “new” experience for the 154th, since they were used to the highly efficient supply system and the shorter supply lines in the Army of the Potomac, which is where they were until they were shoved out west after Gettysburg.
So when would you blouse your pants inside your pant legs. Well, when you felt you needed to. Would you do it on parade or guard, probably not (or not after the Corporal or Sergeant caught you anyway). Would you do it for a staged picture? Probably not, since you wanted to look your best. If the ticks or redbugs were bad, you bet. If your socks keep falling down, probably. You would do anything to keep your socks up, to include wrapping cord or string around them to keep them up. So when would you do it? When you needed to and it wasn’t absolutely forbidden.