White Gloves

[Michael Mantini]

I despise white gloves. I do not like seeing them at inspections, city holiday parades or dress parades at living histories. When I am the company commander at an event I instruct the lads to put them away whenever I see them come out.
I am having a running debate with another member of my unit who claims he has seen "countless photos" of civil war soldiers wearing white gloves at dress parade. As of yet he has not produced one let alone countless photos.
Does anybody have any evidence of wide spread use of white gloves by soldiers?

Below are links to two images I found clearly showing white gloves. One is of CTs in a column of companies probably at an inspection. The other is of officers and a few NCO posing for a portrait. I know I have seen one or two more but, for me this is not enough to warrant their use in our unit.

26th USCVI at Camp William Penn, PA 1865
http://www.civilwarphotos.net/files/images/006.jpg

63rd NYVI
http://www.civilwarphotos.net/files/images/297.jpg

What's your opinion?

Mike Mantini
5NHV

[trippcor]

According to the US Army regulations white gloves were part of the uniform. Here are some references I found to white gloves:

1530. For General Officers and Officers fo the General Staff and Staff Corps - buff or white

1531. For Officers of Artillery, Infantry, Cavalry, Dragoons, and Riflemen - White.

[Johan Steele]

They were part of the uniform, may not like them but in certain very specific situations they were worn. All of the pics of soldiers involved w/ President Lincolns funeral that I have seen show gloves and I have seen others. They were a dress item to be worn for special occasions, not everyday useage and certainly not in the field on campaign.

It will all depend upon what the scenario calls for.

[AZReenactor]

A few more Pics from Mark Herman's Article on Support Arms (http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/supportarms/) of soldiers that appear to be wearing white gloves.

http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/supportarms/exbrig.jpg

http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/supportarms/support2.jpg

http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/supportarms/support10.jpg

http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/supportarms/support8.jpg

http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/supportarms/26thnysupport.jpg

http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/supportarms/support9.jpg

[Kace]

There are also a number of references in All For The Union where Rhodes says he made sure the troops had gloves for an inspection.

Kace

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/cwpbh/03300/03373v.jpg
(29th U.S.C.T.)

It is recorded that, while at Camp Prospect, VA in the spring of 1862, the 14th Brooklyn "received new uniforms...with white gloves and paper collars."

[ThehosGendar]

Here's an odd place to see shoulder scales and white gloves - ferrying a company in a test of the experimental blanket boats in Alexandria, VA.

LC-DIG-ppmsca-10422, "Military construction in northern Virginia: raft of blanket boats ferrying soldiers across the Potomac River."

[Michael Mantini]

There are some good photos in these posts. In some of them I'm not sure they are gloves but, there are more than I thought. I notice a lot of them are CT units. Do you think its because they are US Regulars or because of some racist element?

Mike Mantini
5NHV

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Okay, there's some images of soldiers at parade with white gloves. It sort of strikes me that a lot of these regiments were band box soldiers, and even had a photographer present. How common were white gloves on these guys really?

And further, how common were white gloves on front-line, veteran troops? Because white gloves for enlisted men were certainly a frivilous nicety, Army Regs-specified or not, I'd reckon (without evidence to support it) that white gloves were probably extremely rare on enlisted troops who actually marched and fought.

One of the two photos Mike M posted was of the 63rd New York of the Irish Brigade (each of the Irish Brigade's regiment had numerous photos taken in the late spring or summer of 1865 in front of that same tent and fly, so the image posted is a very late-war or post-war image after the fighting stopped and the regiment had been resupplied with a lot of nice new gear), but appears to show commissioned officers wearing white gauntlets instead of enlisted men with gloves. Now on that particular topic, I believe gauntlets on commissioned line officers were probably not an everyday thing, but I'd suspect they were more common than white gloves for enlisted men. Among other things, I have an account by a relative of mine who was a company commander in a regiment of the Third Corps, Army of the Potomac, and of the battle of Chancellorsville he wrote that he was wearing white goatskin gauntlets (this account is now easier to find in print than it used to be: it's published in Peter Cozzens's Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Vol. 5, 2002, under the same title it was published as in Hearst's Magazine in 1913: "When the Rappahannock Ran Red".)

About the Army Regs saying that white gloves were part of the uniform, perhaps it said that, but what was actually the practice? The Army Regs said a lot of things that weren't actually done, or were rarely done.

[ThehosGendar]

Below are some more images of the white gloves appearing on parade and posed comapny shots in Washington, but, in line with what Kevin was saying, these are Veteran Reserve Corps soldiers, stationed in Washington at the end of the war. Regs, here, are obviously strictly enforced, as several soldiers are indeed wearing leather neckstocks as well.

Now, as for out the in the field, again, as Kevin mentioned, they could be a frivolous nicety. While a tiny load to bear, would one rather keep some white gloves for parade, or make room for paper to write home in their knapsack? Culling first person accounts and the ORs are the only way to surely know, here.

Images used: LC-DIG-cwpb-04310 - "Company F, U.S. Veteran Reserve Corps at Washington Circle," LC-DIG-cwpb-04301 - "Company C, 10th U.S. Veteran Reserve Corps" (mislabeled, actually Company D, 8th VRC), LC-DIG-cwpb-04292 - "9th U.S. Veteran Reserve Corps," LC-DIG-cwpb-04234 - "Company K, 9th U.S. Veteran Reserve Corps, at Washington Circle."

[Michael Mantini]

Kevin is articulating my point better than I. Havelocks, gaiters and shoulder scales are all part of the US regs and I put white gloves in that category. I'm looking for "wide spread" use of gloves. Kevin used the term "band box soldiers". I like to say that I don't want to see "civil war nutcrackers" in the field. Obviously if you are recreating a specific event were evidence exists that they were wearing them then so be it. I do appreciate all the pictures. I didn't think there were that many out there.

Mike Mantini
5NHV

[FlatLandFed]

From Jason: "…are some more images of the white gloves appearing on parade…"

Gents -- isn't that the point?

Many of us are attempting to pay our respects to the CW veterans every time we put on our reproduction kits. In the field, we dress as appropriate for a given scenario.

When we're "on parade" shouldn't we go that extra step to do as they did? Sure, it seems obvious that soldiers didn't like white gloves on a day to day basis and "probably" tossed them in the same heap as neck stocks and even gaitors buttttttt for a truly important event such as the funeral of a respected leader, guard duty at headquarters, Grand Parade at war's end, etc the photos say they put a little more into their formal attire whether voluntarily or not.

Should we do any less in support of our veterans tomorrow?

Just my two flying eagles,
Paul Hadley
Marching tomorrow WEARING white gloves

[Rob]

If I may be permitted a slight digression:

To all of the fresh fish out there - please note the positioning of the weapon while performing Support Arms.

[Hargis, G. 5 A-1]

If I may be permitted a slight digression:

To all of the fresh fish out there - please note the positioning of the weapon while performing Support Arms.

Digression IS the norm around here.
Note the position of the left forearm – some level and some at an angle with hand higher up on the chest.
Then (as now) THE WAY things were done was really the wayS things were done.

[Watchdog]

The men of the Seventeenth Michigan went into their first battle (Fox's Gap at South Mountain in Maryland on September 1862) with their gloves on their cap box belts accordinmg to diary accounts.

Apropriate application and common sense applies here:

What is the situation? In camp on the march or in the middle of a battlefield?
Were they issued and how many would have still had them for a morning or evening parade--which should be done at almost any occasion except, perhaps in the midst of a battle.

The Civil War was over a fourteen hundred days long. Each day was different and many scenarios apply. Some of us seem to have our imressions set to one particular day.

[Edmund{Road Apple}]

Yes i agree white gloves do get anoying at events but they are in army regulations. so they must have had them (or didn't due to supple issues) this may bring up a questiong was it only US infantry regualrs who got them? or did volunteer units get them as well?

Edmund,
The AC posting rules clearly spell out the requirement that all members MUST sign their full name to their posts.
Please add your full name to your signature line for your account to avoid further warnings up to including deletion of your account. Thank you.
Gentofthesouth1861.

[Charles Heath]

Road Apple,

Your question is answered multiple times in this very thread. For folks such as yourself who are are just now migrating over from Osz, it may help to actually read the threads before adding in questions that have already been answered.

Once you learn to sign your name, take a few minutes to learn to use the search engine, to lower the risk of asking "who makes the best knapsack," or "what do I put in my haversack." A search engine is a terrible thing to waste.

[BCIDick]

I believe the question was how prevalent was the use of white gloves by federal troops, with no differentiation between troops actively campaigning, and those in winter quarters, manning fixed fortifications, or detailed to countless other duties. It's a no brainer that units conducting active operations (campaigning) would have little time or use for white glove parades. Those who may have been stuck in a fort somewhere, or who were in winter quarters probably had to parade with white gloves as supplies and the whims of their respective commanders dictated.

As a side observation, these are nice examples of the troops correctly demonstrating the position of support arms.

Bob Firth

[SCTiger]

If a reenactor has actually went on a march or really lived in primitive camping conditions, the idea of sliding pristine white gloves over your grimy, mud and ash stained hands seems awfully strange and silly. Imagine the campaign veteran, that hasn't washed in days/weeks/months and who is filthy from head to toe, being required to slip on white gloves and leggings! It would almost be comical. I agree with Kevin, this is strictly a garrison, formal parade or permanent camp requirement. It would be similar to a modern soldier wearing his dress blues to go marching or dig a fighting position. The Army has always recognized the difference between field and dress gear. Why would a field soldier (officers excluded) wear dress gear to the battlefield march? Let's use some common sense here.

Another reenactorism that is perpetuated by those who don't ever march, who sleep on cots, reside in A-frames on grass covered fields and supply themselves with every modern convenience in camp. An "idea" situation that no campaign veterans ever experienced.

[theknapsack]

All people who believe that a soldier would have carried something because it was in regulation (at all times) is grievously wrong (I know, I'm stating the obvious). There are countless accounts of soldiers throwing away gear throughout the war because it added weight.
From a modern prospective, do soldiers now carry their Class A's or B's (or both) when they are on a patrol, or even overseas (I'm not sure about the latter).
Also, it is important to remember that the soldiers of the period were not like their modern volunteer counterparts. Most regiments only drilled for a month, plus they were drilled by mostly untrained officers, not by extremely strict regulations. For example, a simple study of many photos will reveal the non-existence of constant uniformity, down to the way something is worn (unless on parade). Just my opinion. Just look to the situation and portrayal, that is your guiding light. Most pictures don't have white gloves in them.

[billwatson]

So Michael, you asked for opinions and got them.

A brief note that Capt. Louis Francine of the 7th NJVI, while the regiment was being assembled and trained in Trenton, drew favorable attention to himself by providing his Company A with white gloves and otherwise sprucing them up to stand out from the crowd. His men might later wish that he'd spent as much time grasping the concept of defilade, but it's just one example of all the arbitrary and variable things that can go into a decision about something as mundane as white gloves.
Seems like they're over among the "things that usually don't matter much but might once in a while for some reason or other."
The well-drilled units at the Remembrance Day parade in Gettysburg recently did show up very well in white gloves. The badly drilled ones merely drew attention to their lack of skill with white-gloved. hands pointing out the many awkwardnesses. One more thing to think about: they invite attention and compel the gaze.

[Watchdog]

Mr. Deese writes:
"If a reenactor has actually went on a march or really lived in primitive camping conditions, the idea of sliding pristine white gloves over your grimy, mud and ash stained hands seems awfully strange and silly. Imagine the campaign veteran, that hasn't washed in days/weeks/months and who is filthy from head to toe, being required to slip on white gloves and leggings!"

Yes, soldiers got dirty on the march and on campaign, but that does not mean that they did not wash (hands and face at a minimum) daily or bathe in some fashion when they could. I personally feel some of us take the "campaign equals filth" idea too an extreme. One would also expect that company officers and non-coms would insist that weapons be kept as clean as possible. I have read numerous soldiers's accounts where washing is mentioned--even on campaign. Even POWs tried to keep this small part of human civility in their daily routine when possible.

[Hank Trent]

Was going to go searching for this thread, and conveniently found it bumped again!

Just ran across the following, while researching the 34th Massachusetts. It's a soldier's letter written from near Washington in the summer of 1863, at http://pastvoices.com/usa/stone18631305.shtml:

There is one thing--I think that we have more things to provoke a fellow in this Regiment then in any other Regiment. I will give you an instance. When we marched the Captain of all our Companies to take as little as we could possibly get along with. So most every man in the Regiment left their poorest pair of pants and their old leather stocks and some of them left their white gloves because the Captain told them to leave their old pants and not take but one pair and all such things. And last Sunday, after we had got up here, when we came out on inspection, the Colonel came around and told the Captains of all the companies to see that every man had a new pair of pants and two pairs of white gloves and a stock and he told the men if they did not have them by next Sunday, he would put every man in the guardhouse and the next day he issued an order so that we have to come out on dress parade with our knapsacks on for two weeks and the Colonel told the Captains the to have the price taken out of the next pay. He says that he will se if the men are going to throw away everything. What do you think of that?

Now, if we should march, I never could carry an extra pair of pants, besides the rest of my things, which is an overcoat, a dress coat, my shirts, towels, stockings, handkerchief, besides my woolen and rubber blankets and other little trinkets and our rations.

Some context: The 34th had formed the year before (1862) and spent their first year stationed in the camps around Washington, with minimal marching and combat experience so far. They had a reputation for being well disciplined, with strict officers.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Kevin O'Beirne]

I think these recent posts point up that things in the Civil War could (and did) vary considerably from one regiment to hte next, and from one time to the next within the same regiment. One martinet colonel or captain could be a stickler for seemingly nonsensical (to volunteers) protocols such as wearing white gloves, and another in the same brigade couldn't have cared less about the same issue. Attempting to attach generalizations to these things is like chasing the wind.

Similarly, with respect to Bill Christen's post above, some soldiers certainly did try to clean up when they could even on campaign (there's the famous image of Federal soldiers bathing in the North Anna River during the arduous Overland Campaign of May 1864) but for many men a campaign meant little opportunity for bathing, coupled with the knee-deep mud or choking dust that plagued soldiers on many marches. The one generalization I'd make on this is that soldiers on campaign were certainly dirtier than when they were in a camp, but to just what extent for a given regiment in a given campaign is something to determine on a case-by-case basis from the history books. Certainly the "all soldiers were filthy dirty on campaign" is just as untrue as "the army regs said to keep clean so soldiers did so at all times". In the end, back on the topic of this thread, I think Greg Deese made an important point: it's hard to picture a guy on a dirty march putting on nice clean white gloves. That said, probably someone somewhere ordered his men to do just that at some time in the war.

[DaveGink]

As already mentioned, context is the key (both in reality and in a reenacting scenario). Were they garrisoned or actively campaigning? Were they being inspected? Was it a ceremony? Was there a visiting Senator, General, or other VIP? Were they in formation simply for a unit photo? How strict was the commander? Etc. etc.

As to the first post, I believe it is safe to say there are plenty of photos showing white gloves in use to indicate it wasn't an entirely rare event depending on the circumstances.

As to whether or not other branches and volunteer units also wore them at times, here is a photo of the the 3rd Pennsylvania Cavalry - Co D in March of '64 at Brandy Station:

http://www.shadowlandstudios.com/images/3d_PennsyCav_CoD_March64small.jpg

[DaveGink]

Here is a detail shot showing about a third of the men from this Company. I love their mix of sacks, jackets, and headware.

[Kace]

Another point that shows that gloves were probably hit and miss. Take a look at the detail photo posted by Dave Gink. The officer and the private behind and to his right do not have gloves on. I think there are a couple more on the other side of the larger photo but the detail is not there to tell for sure. Here, in a documented instance gloved troops, you have both those with gloves and those without.

Kace

[DaveGink]

Another point that shows that gloves were probably hit and miss. Take a look at the detail photo posted by Dave Gink. The officer and the private behind and to his right do not have gloves on. I think there are a couple more on the other side of the larger photo but the detail is not there to tell for sure. Here, in a documented instance gloved troops, you have both those with gloves and those without.

Kace

Actually, the two over to the right in front who are not wearing white gloves are wearing gauntlets instead.

Here are the rest of them. It's not as big as the detail shot I took from the left because I didn't want the file to get too big, but you can make them out. There does looks to be a couple in the back without gloves.

[Kace]

Actually, the two over to the right in front who are not wearing white gloves are wearing gauntlets instead.

Here are the rest of them. It's not as big as the detail shot I took from the left because I didn't want the file to get too big, but you can make them out. There does looks to be a couple in the back without gloves.

Dave:

Thanks for the detail shot of the right. I could not make out the gauntlets over there.

Kace

[BobSullivanPress]

Well, I'm jumping in kind of late here, but there are some things that are being overlooked in the interest of looking "on campaign".

1. The idea of putting white gloves on hands was to hide the dirt and grime of hands and to give a clean, (dare I say it?) uniform look to the soldiers.

2. Soldiers did NOT carry everything. Items issued but not used could be turned in to the quartermaster (with proper receipts given) and drawn later when needed. Do you think all troops carried overcoats in July? Of course not. Overcoats were turned in in the Spring, and obtained again in the fall. Frock coats, dress hats, scales (and probably gloves) were turned in when on the move. But they were only a brigade quartermaster wagon train away, so if needed for parade or review, they were easily obtained.

Clothing was part of your pay. If you lost it, you paid for it. If you didn't need new, you received the cash equivalent.

It's not rocket science, it's logistics.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Do you think all troops carried overcoats in July? Of course not. Overcoats were turned in in the Spring, and obtained again in the fall. Frock coats, dress hats, scales (and probably gloves) were turned in when on the move.


I'm not sure that I fully agree with the above statement. For example, I believe it was not standard practice in the Union army to collect overcoats in the spring for autumn re-issue until 1863 or even 1864. Of course, the tendency prior to this was for soldiers to throw away their overcoat and other excess gear on one of the first marches of the spring campaign, so the net result was that he was rarely carying an ovecoat in July. Also, there are few regiments of which I've heard that were assigned to an active field army where the typical soldier had various jackets at any given time. Of course, folks can certainly provide examples of this happening, but was it typical, or was it pretty much only in "spit-and-polish" regiments?

[DaveGink]

Here is another photo showing a company of Cavalry assigned to Grant as escort. This was taken in Virginia in 1865.