"Button That Top Button!" Arrggh!

[Shockoe Hill Cats]

Hello all,

I remember my very first event as I was introduced into this hobby. A raw private, just being handed an Enfield rifle to improve my farby impression, I was eager to engage with the public at a living history event.

It was a hot, muggy Virginia day. Finally I got my break from the hordes of people and I sat down and removed my Zouave jacket. Suddenly, a rough, hard-ass First Sergeant told me to put my jacket back on. His reasoning: wearing your braces in public was considered like “wearing your underwear in public today.” He also told me to button just the top collar button as well.

Not sure if this question has been posted yet, but does anyone know the validity of this procedure? I’ve seen several pictures of men in camp not wearing their jackets and not having the top collar button buttoned (See photographs below). Why is what I did wrong or still potentially wrong?

Thoughts? Pointers?

Thanks,

Jason

[65thgainf]

I was told to do it, "When leaving camp." Could go without in camp.

Jerry Holmes

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

Hopefully, Mr. Wickersty will follow with the early image of the nudist colony playing chess. Scanda-freakin'-lous.

[ThehosGendar]

Tell that to the naked guys that show up in several LOC images bathing in the various rivers and streams. There's even one guy completely in the buff in water up to his knees looking right at the camera.

I'm busy studying for a mid-term right now, but there are HUNDREDS of images of soldiers with the top-buttons undone, their shirt buttons undone, shirt sleeves rolled up, no shirts, trousers rolled up, standing barefoot, wearing caps backwards... and some of these in the presence of officers, too.

Spend some time floating around the LOC's online images and download them in high-res rather than listening to reenactor sergeants.

[boozie]

1863 Federal camp outside of Chattanooga Tennessee. Quite a variety of buttoned, unbuttoned along with the no jacket at all. The officer to the right wearing the cap seems to be O.K. with it all.

Library of Congress Image

[ThehosGendar]

Here's the PG version of "LC-DIG-cwpb-01807, White House Landing, Va. View down river, with supply vessels." He ain't wearing nothing, along with the guys on shore, in full view of the supply ships unloading. And don't tell me that guy isn't smirking.

And, officers did it, too (the shirtsleeve thing, tho' I'm sure they had to wash sometime, too.) - "LC-DIG-cwpb-00230, Fauquier Sulphur Springs, Virginia. Officers of the 60th New York Volunteers." And look behind the officers... soldiers with their sleeves rolled up and jackets off.

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

Talking with Mr. Wickersty about this now, it raises an important question -- is there ANY hope for the alleged Civil War knowledge base that perpetuates reenactorisms like this? The oft-asked question of "are all the NCO's in your unit dead?" can easily be substituted with "are all the NCO's in your unit spouting the same BS they were taught?"

It's an eternal question, asked many ways over the years by many people, but really...airdrops of leaflets? Sucking it up and taking a full-page ad in CCG? How do you counteract a widespread rumor, which is all these "rules" amount to? Why is it harder to start a "there's no visual evidence of propriety when it comes to military men off-duty" rumor?

Perhaps it's because that following what they perceive as "19th century etiquette" makes them a better living historian, when instead it makes them hokey and just plain wrong.

Heard that some of the "support arms" at Perryville would have made me cry.

[ThehosGendar]

Oh, and here's what Mr. Hermann was referring before, about the early nudist colony chess match. From "Dressed for the Photographer," an 1850s image of men without their jackets AND their sleeves rolled up... NEAR A WOMAN! And... the woman has short sleeves! GASP!

According the rules of etiquette that 94% of reenactors go by, all those men should be jabbing their eyes out.

[KCLoewe]

I defend no one with this reply (I hate when people say such stupid re-enactorisms as well), but I do have an idea of where "button the top button" may have come from.
In the 1861 U.S. Regulations there is;
1459. On all occasions of duty, except fatigue, and when out of quarters, the coat or jacket shall be buttoned and hooked at the collar.

Now that can be interpreted numerous ways. In my opinion it says, buttoned and if you have a coat with hooks (ie; frock coat) also hooked while on duty. Quarters could be replaced with Camp.
Photo evidence definately shows things were done differently. But I'm just giving a thought as to how it may have gotten started.

Kurt Loewe
Botsford Mess

[dusty27]

Of course, as with everything, this must be taken into context. Most of the pictures provided on the thread are pictures of men in casual settings, away from the "public" and ladies. As the one member shows, it seems to be in the regulations to have at least one button closed when on duty.

I would think that the 1st Sgt in this case was implying that you were still "on duty" and in the public's eye, so you should keep one button done.

As to the lady in the last picture, who know her role with the army if any.

Not saying it isn't overdone, but I'm not ready to call it a "reenactorism" quite yet either.

[JimKindred]

Kurt,

I agree, my interpetion of the regs is that all buttons INCLUDING the top button and hook will be buttoned not strictly the top button alone.



I defend no one with this reply (I hate when people say such stupid re-enactorisms as well), but I do have an idea of where "button the top button" may have come from.
In the 1861 U.S. Regulations there is;
1459. On all occasions of duty, except fatigue, and when out of quarters, the coat or jacket shall be buttoned and hooked at the collar.

Now that can be interpreted numerous ways. In my opinion it says, buttoned and if you have a coat with hooks (ie; frock coat) also hooked while on duty. Quarters could be replaced with Camp.
Photo evidence definately shows things were done differently. But I'm just giving a thought as to how it may have gotten started.

Kurt Loewe
Botsford Mess

[billwatson]

1459. On all occasions of duty, except fatigue, and when out of quarters, the coat or jacket shall be buttoned and hooked at the collar.

Now that can be interpreted numerous ways. In my opinion it says, buttoned and if you have a coat with hooks (ie; frock coat) also hooked while on duty. Quarters could be replaced with Camp.
Photo evidence definately shows things were done differently. But I'm just giving a thought as to how it may have gotten started.

Kurt Loewe
Botsford Mess

I think Kurt has summed it up. It could be cleared up with a comma: "On all occasions of duty, except fatigue, and when out of quarters, the coat or jacket shall be buttoned, and hooked at the collar."

It is ambiguously worded for us. Its meaning was probably perfectly clear within the army before the war. Its meaning MAY have been ambiguous to the hundreds of thousands of volunteers after 1861. But I don't really think so.

Logic and reason have to come into play. Unless we want to believe that those who wrote the regulations were slaves to fashion, and we also want to believe that the fashion in 185x was for formal wear that buttoned only at the neck, you have to read this as saying that the coat should be buttoned (all the buttons) and that the hook at the top, necessary to make the collar stand up properly, must also be engaged. Why would the army expect men on duty not to use all the buttons on their coat or jacket? Why do we think there's a "minimum standard" of "buttoned-at-the-neck is OK?" How does this work out in January at Fort Snelling? (Darned chilly, is the answer). Is there also a minimum standard for "charge bayonet?" How about "28 inches and 90 to the minute?" Is it OK to go 29 inches and 92 to the minute? No. The army regs are absolutes, so if those who interpret this as "buttoned at the neck only is correct" want to be consistent, they will have to enforce that and make those who are fully buttoned conform, by ordering them to unbutton all but the neck while on duty.
I invite "neck only" officers and sergeants to try that sometime, because often saying it out loud in the presence of othes brings home the absurdity of things far more effectively than reading it on a computer screen.

[Shockoe Hill Cats]

Thanks all who responded, your help is greatly appreciated!

I think that we can all deduce that the regulation point that has been found obviously was not enforced in camp. Various pictures displayed by Mr. Busenbark, Mr. Hermann, and Mr. Wickersty are testaments to that.

As to whether I was on or off duty, that is questionable. But won't get into what I was or wasn't doing. The point is that casual lounging in camp with your coat off, on, or unbuttoned, is as history shows acceptable. And like Marc said, it could be turning into a reenactorism soon by people who have no idea on 19th Century etiquette.

[Charles Heath]

And for those who actually do look at the photos, check out the large number of lads in group shots who folded back their federal issue sack coats to create lapels -- often sporting a cravat.

[JimKindred]

"And like Marc said, it could be turning into a reenactorism soon by people who have no idea on 19th Century etiquette."

Could be turning into a reenactorism? I don't want to bust any bubbles but this was a reenactorism more than 25 years ago and still continues.

[mtvernon]

A question: I have relied on others' knowledge in this regard who have declared that the 'top button' rule was in place until Gen. Grant became general-in-chief in 1864, who then relaxed it.

I didn't see anyone in this topic mention this, a fact that makes me wonder if this information is inaccurate or misinterpreted.

Respectfully,

[Emmanuel Dabney]

And I have always been willing to note that ladies would not have been shocked my male bodies without coats, what they would have taken another glance at is if Mr. Maxwell Moneybags suddenly stripped off his broadcloth suit right in the midst of a dinner party with guests.

Particularly in the South and urban areas (North and South) women (ladies and not) are seeing laboring classes of men (white and black, enslaved and free) without coats, they are not gentlemen. (Before the Crash of 2006 there was a great thread of lady v. woman and meanings within the period.)

Attached is a wartime image of a coatless overseer with the family that employed him.

[Hargis, G. 5 A-1]

There is no regulation that forbids the sprouting of wings and flying about the parade ground. This is because nobody ever did that.
There is a regulating that directs the men to keep their coats buttoned because they were leaving them open (human nature being what it is.)
If the troops NEVER violated the Regs, why do we have volumes of courts-martial records that say otherwise?
The question that might be asked is "Is being a bad soldier sometimes a good impression?"


Health note — if you read that book Miss L.M. Alcott kept trying to peddle, A Long, Fatal Love Chase, (one that we can't mention whilst "in Period" because it was only published recently) you will encounter a murder accomplished by the fiendish means of hiding a gentleman's coat so that he was outside at midday without its protection on a hot day and died as a result.
So to modern, mid-nineteenth century medical common knowledge, an unbuttoned coat provides only partial protection from the sun’s deadly rays.

[ThehosGendar]

"And like Marc said, it could be turning into a reenactorism soon by people who have no idea on 19th Century etiquette."

Could be turning into a reenactorism? I don't want to bust any bubbles but this was a reenactorism more than 25 years ago and still continues.

Research is the reenactorisms worst enemy, and to many reenactors, it's a foreign word. Much of the entrenched reenactor lore of how 19th century people and soldiers behaved is passed down verbally... it's pretty much reenactor oral history, and as any trained historian knows, oral history, especially after being transmitted over several generations, is pretty sketchy.

Reenactor lore promulgates because of trust. A new kid joins, and he's given a mentor in the unit, to show him how to drill and get a uniform. Presumably, it's someone who has been in the unit for a little while, so the new recruit thinks, "He's been doing this a while. He probably knows what he's doing. I should listen to him." Then, a few years pass, and the recruit is now a seasoned reenacting veteran. Now, a new body comes in, and its his turn to drill the newbie. And, so, he teaches how he learned, and what he learned, and the cycle goes on and on.

Add to this some stuff they may have learned from school, T.V. documentaries, and movies, and again, we trust that they know what they're talking about. A documentary talks about Civil War photography, and says that the pictures are grainy. Well, that must mean that photography was really bad! You've probably learned in school that "Victorians" were uptight people. Someone looks at random studio portraits from the entire 1830 - 1890 period, because they're all Victorians and all Victorians are the same. "Wow! They do look really stiff! No one is smiling!" says they. And everyone says this, too! It has to be right!

To this, also add a tablespoon of overreliance on etiquette books, a pinch of modern superiority complex ("They didn't have computers and air conditioning and had to make stuff on their own... that's weird and stupid!"), and a good helping of drivel like The Victorian Trading Company (http://www.victoriantradingco.com/store/store.html), bake for 4 hours, and I think you'll have the problem. Then you'll need to clean your oven.

[MBBursig]

Well said Mr. Wickersty. Well said.

[JimKindred]

Research is a dieing art.

Research is the reenactorisms worst enemy, and to many reenactors, it's a foreign word. Much of the entrenched reenactor lore of how 19th century people and soldiers behaved is passed down verbally... it's pretty much reenactor oral history, and as any trained historian knows, oral history, especially after being transmitted over several generations, is pretty sketchy.

Reenactor lore promulgates because of trust. A new kid joins, and he's given a mentor in the unit, to show him how to drill and get a uniform. Presumably, it's someone who has been in the unit for a little while, so the new recruit thinks, "He's been doing this a while. He probably knows what he's doing. I should listen to him." Then, a few years pass, and the recruit is now a seasoned reenacting veteran. Now, a new body comes in, and its his turn to drill the newbie. And, so, he teaches how he learned, and what he learned, and the cycle goes on and on.

Add to this some stuff they may have learned from school, T.V. documentaries, and movies, and again, we trust that they know what they're talking about. A documentary talks about Civil War photography, and says that the pictures are grainy. Well, that must mean that photography was really bad! You've probably learned in school that "Victorians" were uptight people. Someone looks at random studio portraits from the entire 1830 - 1890 period, because they're all Victorians and all Victorians are the same. "Wow! They do look really stiff! No one is smiling!" says they. And everyone says this, too! It has to be right!

To this, also add a tablespoon of overreliance on etiquette books, a pinch of modern superiority complex ("They didn't have computers and air conditioning and had to make stuff on their own... that's weird and stupid!"), and a good helping of drivel like The Victorian Trading Company (http://www.victoriantradingco.com/store/store.html), bake for 4 hours, and I think you'll have the problem. Then you'll need to clean your oven.

[theknapsack]

Mr. Wickersty,

Amen.

[SCTiger]

Why is this a three star thread? Somebody out there must be threatened by these statements. Heck, that's some of the best comments I have seen in a long time. The man brought up a good example of reenactorisms and we learned something, also the lack of research was well stated.

[JimKindred]

It could also be that there are a lot of people like myself that don't give a darn about using the little stars.

[Shantyman]

Too the best of my understanding, in the presence of civilized company or women, a man needs to wear a jacket fully buttoned not exposing any skin or undershirt (ie. ends of cuffs or collar) at the very least a vest. If unpreparedly adressed or in the presance of a lady he must button the top button of his shirt. In many military camps there were no women or civilians of high regard so clothing restrictions were less inforced wile off duty.

Steven Flibotte
Liberty Hall Fifes & Drums

[JimKindred]

Give us a written period reference on this please. Also did you read all of the previous posts on this subject?

[Shantyman]

I have no writen reference. Like i Said with the top button issue "To the best of my understanding" the above is how it was explained to me.


Steven Flibotte
Liberty Hall Fifes & Drums

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

These women certainly don't seem to be terribly offended.

[JimKindred]

This is the Authentic Campaigner forum, please do not make statements you cannot back up without documentation. The majority of this thread has been about trying to eliminate reenactor myths that have been passed on for decades without any period references. I am not trying to bust your chops but I do want you to understand that people on this forum will ask for references when statements are made of a historical nature.

I have no writen reference. Like i Said with the top button issue "To the best of my understanding" the above is how it was explained to me.


Steven Flibotte
Liberty Hall Fifes & Drums

[Shantyman]

Beg pardon, completly understood


Steven Flibotte
Liberty Hall Fifes and Drums

[flattop32355]

Is it possible that there were rules for civilian gentlemen and military officers not in the field which were more, shall we say, rigid than what the common folk/soldiers were required to meet?

Most (all?) etiquette books seem to be written with the idea of meeting the standards of the "upper class", who wished to remain aloof of the working classes and below, rather than showing a more common standard.

Within the military, today as well as the CW, regulations for such things as dress and deportment were relaxed in a war zone compared to either peacetime or rear areas. So I see no contradiction should both practices be appropriate within their own zones of activity/engagement.

[ThehosGendar]

She's pretty cool with things, too.

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

Is it possible that there were rules for civilian gentlemen and military officers not in the field which were more, shall we say, rigid than what the common folk/soldiers were required to meet?

Most (all?) etiquette books seem to be written with the idea of meeting the standards of the "upper class", who wished to remain aloof of the working classes and below, rather than showing a more common standard.


Think of it this way...how many 'upper class' professions today necessitate the removal of outer garments while in public? How many lawyers strip down to a t-shirt in the courtroom?

Yet how surprised are we when a construction worker shows up in a tank top?

In the same vein, a lawyer in his office might take off his coat or loosen his tie today, but his 'on duty' uniform requires he fix those things.

The same can be applied to the 19th century and its professions. People observe etiquette where etiquette is required, sure, but that doesn't mean necessarily that it's a universal rule for everyone at all times. The construction worker in his tank top today and the laborer with his sleeves rolled up in 1861 are both appropriate for their times, places, and occupations.

[Pvt Peck]

This is an excellent post on an old & long standing re-enactorism that I was once guilty of foisting on soldiers as a First Sgt. I would suggest that anyone called to task for not having his top button done up politly ask the officer/nco to produce the regulation or general order stating that said button must be done up when not on "duty" or pulling fatigue. Another excellent point I'm pleased to see people address is the modern impression that all Victorians were prim and proper, following a strict code of manners 24/7. These were real pragmatic people, a great number of whom probably would shock us with very corse manners and behaviours! Its good to see so much photographic evidence put forward too as to men in shirtsleeves etc.. and in the company of females.

Ted Parrott
"HUMBUG"

[PogueMahone]

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h72/swhithrn/fort.jpg

Never say never. Here's an image recently discussed on the Hard Case forum. While on a fatigue detail, every man is wearing his sack and all have at least the top button buttoned.

(Photo identified as LC-B8171-3503.) Thanks to Stan Whitehorn for sharing it on the HCB.

[jpbab]

I don't see a thing wrong with your "top" telling you to "button up." That's HIS way and your supposed to follow orders. He's kind of a hard ass guy it seems. But that's his way.

I've had REAL 1sg's tell me to remove my nomex gloves because they weren't issue and use the issued black leather gloves. Other 1sg's didn't care if I wore a nomex jacket. (Armor)

It all depends on who's in charge and what THEY want to do.

At my first reenactment I wore braces exposed, jacket top buttoned, any way I wanted and no one said a thing.

This is really just between you and your first sargeant.

[AZReenactor]

I don't see a thing wrong with your "top" telling you to "button up." That's HIS way and your supposed to follow orders. He's kind of a hard ass guy it seems. But that's his way.
...
It all depends on who's in charge and what THEY want to do.
...
This is really just between you and your first sargeant.

Jeffery,
You'r correct to a point. The problem though is that this 1st Sargent was not acting in a period context and saying do what he says because he is sargeant. Rather he was acting as a reenactor propogating reenactorisms by suggesting that "wearing your braces in public was considered like wearing your underwear in public today" and telling recruits to button just the top collar button.

And Joe, as for the fatigue detail with buttons buttoned, maybe they were just cold ;-)

[Cleaveland]

thats a great image, but the coats might be buttoned because south ga is cold in dec. Fort Mcallister was captured in december and the picture shows a detail of men emtying a magizine shortly there after.

john

[Watchdog]

This bit of misinformation comes from mis-interpretation of the US Army uniform regulations. In regard to the dress coat (nine-button), there is a statement in the regulations to the effect that the dress coat must be "hooked at the top." This refers to the hook and eye attachments at the collar. Naturally, while on duty a soldier was to have all buttons (of any coat) fastened (on fatigue duty it would depend on the job, weather and the judgment of the person in charge).

While off duty, while in camp, on post or anywhere else, there is no requirement that all, none or any amount of buttons should be fastened. The civilian norm (or fashion) at the time (1850-1875) required or suggected many kinds of button arrangements. One would expoect that a soldier would be prooud enough of his appearnce to look presentable--buttons buttoned or not--and perhaps follow civilian fashion trends.

In regard to showing your underwear--in this case a shirt--this is another mis-interpretation. By the middle of the nineteenth-century ordinary shirts were no longer considered underwear. This can be seen in photographs and by the fact that shirts were no longer being made with tails long enough to serve the purpose of underwear. The fact that many shirts seen in photographs have designs is another indication that they were made to be seen.

[styler]

I would suggest that anyone called to task for not having his top button done up politly ask the officer/nco to produce the regulation or general order stating that said button must be done up when not on "duty" or pulling fatigue.

Or you could take a note from several courts martial and profanely challenge his authority. "S--k my a--" comes to mind right away, coupled with some personal epithets. You may end up riding a wooden horse or a log, but it's all in the name of authenticity and an interesting learning experience for your comrades.

[billwatson]

I get the feeling we may have drifted away from the key thing in a few cases, not necessarily the most recent posts.

As Bill Christen says, there are no requirements for buttons and such when you are off duty.

And when you are on duty, all the buttons are supposed to be buttoned and if you are wearing a dress coat or some other jacket that has a metal hook at the collar, you must also engage the hook at the collar.

[Andrew Keehan]

I've heard this argument before and it always brings to mind a favorite image of mine. It's of officers and men of the 69th NYSM at Camp Corcoran before Bull Run. Men in shirt sleeves sit in the foreground in the company of officers, ladies, and a priest plying his trade. Obviously such restrictions did not apply in this case. Besides, do as they did, not as they say they did.

[billwatson]

Yes, let me qualify what I said: The regulations call for all the buttons to be buttoned. And the hook to be hooked. Not just the top button. What people actually did is up for grabs.

As several have noted, what exasperates me is the admonition to just button the top button; it's based on a misread.

[sauguszouave]

Folks,

I've got a diary from a corporal in the 8th MVM that lists days that the colonel allowed the men to fall in for retreat parade in shirt sleeves because of the July heat outside of Baltimore in 1861. Dress parades were also occasionally skipped because of bad weather.

I've always interpreted the Regulations to mean that officers and men when on duty, or in public, where to be properly uniformed including having all buttons buttoned and all hooks fastened. I think it is a misreading of this to think that it only applies to the top button.

The definition of appropriate dress was at the discretion of the post, garrison, or camp commander. The trick for the living historian is to find out what that was for the unit/location he is portraying.

My favorite court martial quote was from a private in the Co D, 22nd MVI who told his first sergeant: "I have seen the day when I can kick your arse."

Regards,

Paul Kenworthy

[billmatt04]

This is how I think of it. There are rules of social acceptability today as there were in the mid-nineteenth century, but we do not always adhere to them. For example, going to the store in a white undershirt or "wife-beater" is not uncommon, though it is not always attractive and surely wouldn't be considered the most socially acceptable form of dress. Doesn't it stand to reason that our ancestors were much the same? Just look at the images posted on this thread - they only serve to reinforce this assumption.

It was very common for a man to wear only his shirtsleves when working, even in the company of women. Granted, when sprucing himself up for a social event it would be more likely that a man would don a vest and coat, but when working and around friends and family it would only stand to reason that his sense of fashion would be considerably relaxed.

I believe that we often neglect the human element in our living history and reenacting endeavors. People would modify their dress to suit their personal style, not all of their hats would be pristine (many were very floppy), etc. This is just my two cents, but I believe it is agreement with the consensus here. Thanks for the very interesting discussion.

Best,

[Clsinclair]

Going through the book, "Touched by Fire" by William C. Davis there are dozens of pictures of men without coats with braces showing. Most are posing for the picture. There are also men on the cover with coats open and one with only a middle button buttoned. In a book by General Hagood of SC the battalion surgeon orders that the men should not drill in the heat. There are also pictures of men manning the cannons without coats in the Charleston harbor. I would think that common sense took over when heat was involved.

Regards
Claude Sinclair
South Carolina

[sauguszouave]

The following are from the journal of Corporal John P. Reynolds in the collection of the Clements Library of the U. of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Corp. Reynolds was in Co. J of the 8th Mass. Vol. Militia stationed at Camp Essex, Elkridge, Maryland, just across the Patapsco River from the Relay House south of Baltimore, June and July, 1861.

Monday, June 24, 1861:

"By this time it had reached the usual scorching temperature, the refreshing breeze of the morning had completely died away, and the atmosphere was very close, and sultry. Nothing like a comfortable place could be found anywhere in our portion of the encampment. The sod cloths were thrown up, and the boys might be seen lawling about in every conceivable attitude, with their hats and jackets thrown off, barefooted, and engaged in reading, writing, etc.." [p. 108]

Sunday, July 7, 1861:

"At eight o'clock guard mounting took place and at nine the assembly sounded and the Regimental line was formed for inspection. Without delay we were wheeled into column by companies, ranks were opened, and the inspection commenced with the Company on the right, each company as it was inspected being marched to their quarters and dismissed. As soon as we were through with, we returned to our quarters and leaving our jackets in the tents, formed company again and proceeded to a lot half a mile or so from the camp to the south-west, where we in turn discharged our muskets which had been loaded since our Tilghman adventure, at a mark set up for the purpose and some very good shots were made, one in particular by Sergeant Gray." [pp. 188-189]

The "Tilghman adventure" had been a night raid on the home of a man suspected of hiding weapons for secessionists.

"At half past five we fell in for supper and at six the assembly was beaten and the line was formed for divine service which was held in as [sic] shady portion of the encampment selected for the purpose. The services were conducted by the Chaplain, and the band and choir furnished excellent music and singing. The instrumental music of the Band attracted a number of visitors to the camp many of whom were ladies, and after the services were over the line was reformed and companies were dismissed for company drills under the supervision of their respective commanders.

"Our time was now come, but the Captain was a little considerate and ordered us to throw off our jackets which we did. We then 'pitched in' for nearly an hour for the accommodation of our visitors, and returned to quarters wet to the skin with perspiration." [pp. 109-191]

Monday, July 8, 1861:

"The Regiment with the exception of our own company were then drilled for a considerable time in battalion movements by Lieut. Col. Elwell, Col. Hinks being absent. The Company occupied a portion of the camp by themselves, and drilled for an hour and a half in our shirt sleeves and without arms, in company movements by the Captain." [pp. 192-193]

"At about six the line was formed and the Regiment proceeded under the command of Major Poore, to an adjoining lot northwest of the encampment, where we were reviewed by Colonel Hinks. After the review the Company returned to camp and after divesting ourselves of our jackets, we were drilled by the Captain for nearly two hours in all the different branches of the Tactics, before an immense crowd of spectators who thronged the camp, and among whom were a number of distinguished ladies. This was about the toughest drill we had experienced at any time since our entry into service, and we were almost melted when we had finished." [pp. 195-196]

So there you have it: lying about camp in various states of undress, drilling in shirt sleeves without arms, marching out of camp armed but without jackets, and drilling in front of ladies and spectators without jackets.

The Captain referred to in the journal was Arthur Forrester Devereux. Devereux had been a cadet at West Point before dropping out and becoming a business partner of Elmer Ellsworth in Chicago. He was a member of the Illinois National Guard with Ellsworth and learned the drill of the US Zouave Cadets from him. He returned to Salem, Massachusetts after their business failed and was elected Captain of the Salem Light Infantry. The SLI became the first Zouave company in Massachusetts in the summer of 1860. They were mustered in as Co. J of the 8th MVM in April of 1861.

My favorite story from the journal is from Thursday, July 11, 1861 describing dinner at 12:30 pm:

"While we were thus engaged, the boys returned from bathing, and were not slow in taking their customary places around the festive boards. They brought with them a good sized keg of lager, which they had obtained from a brewery on their route, which was placed in the Captains tent and generously distributed to all hands, who 'put away' one glass after another, until the Captain thought it prudent to shut off the stream. Considering the intense heat of the noon day sun, the cool lager worked in admirably and was very refreshing. The only thing we had to regret was that the faucet didn't fly out when the Captain attempted to shut it off, for we all stood ready with our dippers." [pp. 217-218]

Regards,

Paul Kenworthy

[jones56ga]

Yea,
I have to agree with several of the last posts. Disptie any manual, at some point common sense takes hold and you say "wow, it's hot". I can't see where too many officers or NCO's would have a problem with thier men trying to cool off a bit.

Ricky Jones

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Since it is in the regulations. Whether to "Button the top button" depended on three things.

1) What you're superior told you to do.
2) When you were or were not on duty (which could vary from minute to minute).
3) A smart officer using his authority to watch out or the health of the troops (too hot) or the condition of the equipment (example digging ditches in shirt sleeves).

So then the "reenactorism" is in how it is applied not on if it was done. Isn't it?

And since a superior can order the buttons to be buttoned up (when on duty) is it ever really a "reenactorism"?

Generally my Officer/NCO requires me to wear the coat (buttoned) if I'm off the company street. If I'm not on duty on the street I can do what I want. If it's too hot we can ask for permission to leave the company street without our coats. And wood detail is done without our coats.

And if you coat is without a top button there had better be one in place by the next inspection.

Officers would be worried about fashion or 'showing style' but us lowly privates, we just want to be comfortable.

[CoffeeNCWC]

Bottom Line, if a superior officer or a higher ranking NCO gave you an order, follow it period. "Reeanctorism" or not, if you want to present an "authentic" military impression, you did right by following the order. Practicaly speaking, the common soldier would do whatever he felt made his miserable lot in life more bearable...until he was ordered differently.

Jerry Coffee Nunnally
Montgomery Guard

[Rob Weaver]

Can I spin our topic just a bit? There are numerous paintings of battle scenes which were made within 15-20 years of the event depicted, in which men are shown fighting in their shirtsleeves, sleeves rolled up, braces off, etc. The heroic series of the battle of Gettysburg in the Pennsylvania State House pictured in the Time-Life series book on Gettysburg specifically comes to mind. I've been reenacting a looooooong time, and I've rarely, if ever, seen soldiers off their coats to fight. In time frames where you have a flintlock ignition system, it may be considered a safety precaution to put an extra layer of clothing between yourself and fire. What about the above-mentioned?

[floridawar]

I defend no one with this reply (I hate when people say such stupid re-enactorisms as well), but I do have an idea of where "button the top button" may have come from.
In the 1861 U.S. Regulations there is;
1459. On all occasions of duty, except fatigue, and when out of quarters, the coat or jacket shall be buttoned and hooked at the collar.

Now that can be interpreted numerous ways. In my opinion it says, buttoned and if you have a coat with hooks (ie; frock coat) also hooked while on duty. Quarters could be replaced with Camp.
Photo evidence definately shows things were done differently. But I'm just giving a thought as to how it may have gotten started.

Kurt Loewe
Botsford Mess


I think the key point to this regulation is that the uniform coat, or mounted uniform jacket were to be buttoned when on duty, and the collars hooked. Notice that it says "except fatigue." I understand when on fatigue duty in quarters or garrison the men would wear the fatigue sack coat. The sack coat has no collar hooks. I gather per the reference to "quarters" and the exclusion of fatigue dress, that this regulation means nothing to troops in the field or in their fatigue wear.


James Marshall