proper foot wear

[Lt5thGaCav]

I am currently looking into purchasing foot wear. Should I be looking for Boots or brogans? I have hear both are suitable. I do both mounted and dismounted impressions and Federal and confederate. Any sugjestions??


Thanks in advance,

Greg J Geisel Jr.
5th Ga Cav / 9th Pa Cav

[paulcalloway]

You'll want the boots for cavalry and if you're portraying a generic infantry impression, boots will work in most cases as well. You'll want to get some bootees down the road though.

Serio or Mattimore in my experience.

[cavman63]

You'll want the boots for cavalry and if you're portraying a generic infantry impression, boots will work in most cases as well. You'll want to get some bootees down the road though.

Serio or Mattimore in my experience.


In my opinion brogans were just as common as boots for your average trooper.

Maybe more so. Sometimes it seems to me that all those big ol' tall boots are over represented but thats just my opinion.

[ButtermilkRanger]

I agree with Patrick. I'm no expert on Federal cavalry, but I believe that brogans were issued, not boots. I'm quite sure that boots are much too over-represented in the Confederate cavalry ranks today.

I do agree with Paul about the makers, though.

[John E. Tobey]

I think boots were commonly issued to US cavalry. For a concrete example, take Co. A of the 1st Connecticut: in the clothing issuance records for this company (held at GNMP) for the eight months between March and November 1864 (the September report was missing), this company was issued a total of 38 pairs of boots, and not a single pair of shoes. Of course, these issue boots were not the tall kinds we normally think of, but rather short boots -- think of what we call "Roper's" boots today.

John Tobey

[Ken Knopp]

While I cannot even remotely be considered a "knowledgable person" on footwear, I believe one would always have to first look at unit portrayed, period of the war, etc, etc. Most of the CS ordnance returns I have seen usually do not go into that kind of depth but some do if only in cursory numbers.
Like the others posting so far, brogans are very under represented and boots over represented in the hobby- especially the high top boots for an enlisted man. I wear brogans and would like to see more civilian style shoes. Still, having said that if one wanted a pair of boots to "go both ways" a good copy of the Federal boot is a excellent place to start. Photos enclosed are a neat pair of SC shoes and a nice pair of original CW Federal cavalry/artillery boots. I cant remember for sure but I think they are 12" in height.

Ken R Knopp

[Ken Knopp]

OOOOps! I almost forgot!! As a matter of courtesy I should credit the photos. The boot photos are provided by my friend David Jarnigan from his collection. I cannot remember where I "stole" (er, "borrowed" for educational purposes) the shoe photo.

[J.H.Berger]

As stated boots were issued to Cav and Arty but they were of the mid calf length and were originally meant to be worn under the trousers. If you have to march a pair of shoes will probably be the better choice. I wonder how my grandfather went along wearing these Landser boots for 6 years marching and riding through whole Europe and back......

[AZFarrier]

From a practicality purpose I generally go with brogans. At night I some times get up to either meet the call of nature or check on the horses, I feel getting brogans on are easier get on then boots. On the other hand high top boots give added protection when riding through brush ar cactus (where I'm from). Local records show that Sharod Hunters Troopers (Arizona Rangers-CSA) had access to some brogans, a contract was made to a local cobbler in Tucson during that time.

Andy Miller
1st CAL Cav

[T.Kern]

You'll want the boots for cavalry and if you're portraying a generic infantry impression, boots will work in most cases as well. You'll want to get some bootees down the road though.

Serio or Mattimore in my experience.

You want shoes!!! as that is what was being issued for the most part to Confederate cav! I have seen tons of issues and almost all were for shoes! Unless your federal, then you have your choice of one pair of short boots ,12", or two pair of shoes. Shoes are cooler in the heat but most people go with boots because of the preconceived "cool look". I love a fine pair of boots but only use them for specific impressions. Other than officers or early war most enlisted cavalrymen wore what was issued, not boots! In 1864 boots in the south cost around $450, how does a private afford that?

For makers the best was Montana boot, long since gone. MJ & N boot and shoe are very good as well.
Todd Kern

[Linkstrap]

If your current budget allows you to, why not buy both a good pair of boots and a pair of bootees, that way you can tailor your impression according to the scenario.

As to where to buy them, as has already been stated, Serio or Mattimore. (I have boots on order at present with Robert Serio, he's a great guy to do business with).

[Andrew German]

As a wearer of knee-high boots I'm feeling a bit defensive here. However, my choice is based on my great-granduncle's January 1864 request for boots from home: high enough to protect his knees. My research in documents and photos suggests that a sizable percentage of federal troopers wore privately purchased tall boots. To protect your legs in a tight formation, or in brush, or when kneeling on the skirmish line, tall boots are not simply an ego boost, they're practical. Of course you have to pull your pants down over them for inspection and review, but they were a significant presence during the war.

I have not researched issue footwear as thoroughly, but I agree that for issue boots the 12" height is accurate.

Finally, I too endorse Missouri Boot & Shoe products. They're still pliable and comfortable after almost ten years of abuse.

Andrew German

[Parault]

I have done long campaign marches in both boots and brogans. Me personally, I love my brogans. I have some that are very comfortable. I like one on the earlier posts about having to get up during the night to relieve yourself, it is easier to slip on brogans for that short trip, than trying to pull on boots, especially after marching with wet feet. It is far harder to slip feet in those wet boots, than brogans

[paulcalloway]

Missouri Boot & Shoe:
http://www.missouribootandshoe.com/index.asp

Mattimore Harness:
http://www.civilwarboots.com/

[T.Kern]

If your current budget allows you to, why not buy both a good pair of boots and a pair of bootees, that way you can tailor your impression according to the scenario.

As to where to buy them, as has already been stated, Serio or Mattimore. (I have boots on order at present with Robert Serio, he's a great guy to do business with).

I have to say Serio screwed me over a pair of boots, so he was not a great guy to deal with. Next, yes he has an authentic product but not a high end product. The boots he makes would be considered utilitarian in the period. Just presenting both sides.
Todd Kern

[Lt5thGaCav]

To all,

Thanks for the advice, I wish I was rich so I could buy one of everything but I am not so I think I will Purchase a pair of the 12" high Artillery/Cavalry boot.
And if asked when doing Confederate I stole them off a dead Yank.:tounge_sm


Thanks again and Charge On!

Greg J Geisel Jr.

[Andrew German]

Greetings:

To apply some quantitative analysis here, I went through my CDVs and tintypes and the photos in the 1st Mass., 1st Maine, and 10th New York regimentals. Out of 74 images where footwear could be seen, 43 men wore boots and 31 seemed to wear shoes.

For your amusement, here are two shots from the field. The fellow in the tinted ferrotype is George Ayling of the 1st Mass. The tin is inscribed at Potomac Creek, May 21, 1863 (just after their return from Stoneman's Raid). Note the interesting suspender flap on his mounted trousers.

The second is a hard image of a portion of Co. A of the 10th New York, taken at Camp Bayard, Va., early in 1863 (it's beautifully reproduced in Preston's 1892 history of the 10th New York, opp. p. 54). Melvin Douglas is in the saddle with tall boots. Orderly Sergeant Nelson Mitchell stands with tall boots, slouch hat, and gauntlets. John P. McWethey reclines with tall boots and slouch hat. At right, Edward S. Stark kneels in ankle boots. Note the variety of footwear, headgear, and mounted service jacket styles in one company.

Enjoy!
Andrew German

[Andrew German]

I couldn't resist one more image, showing regimental quartermaster sergeant George Fincher of the 1st Pennsylvania home in Reading, probably during his veteran leave in early 1864. Note his knee-flap boots with spurs. I've noticed a proclivity among non-commisssioned officers to wear 9-button "roundabout" jackets rather than mounted service jackets. Fincher has an officer's-style one, with 3-button cuffs. He also seems to have supplied himself with a stylish kepi rather than a forage cap.

Andrew German

[jpbab]

In my opinion brogans were just as common as boots for your average trooper.

Maybe more so. Sometimes it seems to me that all those big ol' tall boots are over represented but thats just my opinion.


Notice the over represented boots in this picture. ;)

(File attached)

Source "Echoes of Glory"

[cavman63]

Notice the over represented boots in this picture. ;)

(File attached)

Source "Echoes of Glory"

All due respect, these guys are not your AVERAGE TROOPERS.
I could be wrong here but it looks to me like the only one not an officer in this photo is the guy holding the horse and he is wearing short boots.

[Daniel_Gregory]

I have to say Serio screwed me over a pair of boots, so he was not a great guy to deal with. Next, yes he has an authentic product but not a high end product. The boots he makes would be considered utilitarian in the period. Just presenting both sides.
Todd Kern

I had the same experience Todd.

[T.Kern]

Have to agree with Patrick. Besides all one has to do is look at documentation to see the huge number of shoes being issed compared to boots.
Todd Kern

[Alan Lloyd]

Friends

Has anyone noticed any seasonal variation in Federal issue of boots/shoes? I wouid speculate that boots would have been more often drawn in the winter and shoes in the summer.

Also, to put in a good word for Missouri boot: I have purchased 5 pairs of boots and shoes from them in the last 10 years and the only trouble I have had is difficulty in getting them to answer the phone. Love the boots

[John E. Tobey]

I don't have a very large data base yet, and only looked at US records, but I've found that troopers were drawing shoes when they were in permanent camp. I'm assuming that they liked shoes for stable and fatigue duty, because there was an order in a divisional order book (1st Div, AoP Cav, I think) that tried to discourage troopers from drawing shoes if they had serviceable boots -- this was in the late fall of 1863, when there was a clothing shortage for parts of the army. Again, these current observations are based on very limited information.

John Tobey

[Rob Walker]

For what it's worth I have a shoe (yes only 1 from the pair) that was worn by confederate calvaryman. I would have to look through some paperwork but I believe it was the 5th Va. Cav. I bought it from a desendant that split the pair unfortunately I got there after the first one was sold and was unable to obtain the pair. Anyway, seems to be there was a bit of personal opinion and preference as too what a man wore on his feet. After viewing some Cavalry images it would appear that the boot was more prevalent but there are an awfull lot of shoes on the men as well. As far as brogans are concerned I personally prefer Mattimore's work.

[DaveGink]

The second is a hard image of a portion of Co. A of the 10th New York, taken at Camp Bayard, Va., early in 1863 (it's beautifully reproduced in Preston's 1892 history of the 10th New York, opp. p. 54). Melvin Douglas is in the saddle with tall boots. Orderly Sergeant Nelson Mitchell stands with tall boots, slouch hat, and gauntlets. John P. McWethey reclines with tall boots and slouch hat. At right, Edward S. Stark kneels in ankle boots. Note the variety of footwear, headgear, and mounted service jacket styles in one company.

Enjoy!
Andrew German

That is a great photo!!! Though it appears to be flopped horizontally. Lots of very interesting details!!

[Andrew German]

Hello Dave,

That's correct, the original must have been a tintype, or possibly an ambrotype, so everything is in reverse. It would be easy enough to flop the digital image to see the "right" side.

Andrew German

[T.Kern]

In all the CS cav receipts I have seen, I have only seen one issue of boots after 1861. And comparatively, it was small numbers when hundreds of shoes were being issued. Sure , an officer or anyone can purchase boots but mind you that was if there was source and if they had the money. In 1864 in the south, according to one Virginia newspaper, boots cost 450 while the private was drawing around 12 per month??? There was almost no choice in the south as the war went on. I love all my boots but it seems shoes were being worn.
As for makers, I have/had 6 pairs from Montana boot Co. and 2 or 3 from Serio's Mo. boot. I do not have any of the serio boots anymore, that should say it all.
Todd Kern

[frankstevanus]

I agree with Todd. Most of the research I have done regarding cavalry foot wear, particularly as the war progressed, uncluded the use of shoes as the most common source of toe cover. I have mostly studied Confederate information, so maybe the Fed's wore the long cow hide. Shoes, however would be your best bet, I think for foot wear and Tom Mattimore makes about the best period shoes I have seen.
Good stuff!

[plankholder]

not trying to play devil's advocate by any means, just speaking on my experiences. I have been wearing Bob Serio's shoe and boots since '91 and have nothing but praise, he is genuinely a good fella, and a fair bussinessman(everyone has their off days though). I have also worn Bob Land's shoes since '98 and his are great quality, and he too is a pleasure to do bussiness with(or just jaw with!). I have never worn any of Mattimore's goods, but I have looked at them closely and heard nothing but good from their wearers-they seem to be first rate. If you can't buy both, I would definatly buy brogans first, you can always pick up some boots farther down the line. Boots are just rough on the march, your dogs will thank you.-ELI GEERY

[vamick]

Greetings:


For your amusement, here are two shots from the field. The fellow in the tinted ferrotype is George Ayling of the 1st Mass. The tin is inscribed at Potomac Creek, May 21, 1863 (just after their return from Stoneman's Raid). Note the interesting suspender flap on his mounted trousers.

Enjoy!
Andrew German

ALSO..howabout that cut down holster for the colt .44 a real 'field expedient'

[majdoc]

I think it was noted before. If riding most of the time boots short or up to the kness would be fine. But if doing infrantry and marching a lot brogans are the way to go. I have used both riding and walking, the shorter boots can be used for marching. I'd say when you can be sure you have both.

[kyhiland]

You want shoes!!! as that is what was being issued for the most part to Confederate cav! I have seen tons of issues and almost all were for shoes!

Would a Confederate trooper have been allowed to keep the footwear he was wearing when he enlisted? Specifically, I'm thinking about a moderately successfull farmer and merchant from C. Ky. in his early 30's. He certainly would have had the means to purchase his own pair of boots. I'm sure he would have already had a pair when he enlisted.

Second question, how long would a single pair of well-made civilian boots have lasted with daily wear before they would have needed replacing (either with another pair of private-purchase boots or with issued shoes)?

[T.Kern]

It sounds like many are looking for excuses to wear boots. There are plenty of reasons to wear them, however as the war goes on it is very unlikely the average trooper had them for several reasons. Yes, of course you would keep the boots you enlisted in and the clothes and ...whatever. That is assuming the guy had boots to begin with, he may not have.
How long do they last? Working on my horse farm I have worn out a pair in a year or less, and this not wearing them all the time. I suspect most soldiers wore them everyday. Then two options, get them resoled or new foot wear. Both of these could be problem, finding leather in a south starving for it made it difficult to get sole leather and then find a cobbler to do the repair (while on active duty?). Next, the huge cost of boots, with CS currency rapidly losing it's value and the scarcity of leather, the price went through the roof. As I said, one account was boots cost $450 in 1864 Richmond, and how much is a private making?
Even if they were more available, images and receipts say otherwise. The picture of Boston's squadron, captured at Aldie June of 63, appears to show no one but the man in civilian attire in boots. A good wartime image of a company of troopers in the field. Yes, they may have had short boots on with trousers out but that pretty much rules out knee highs. Also, hundreds of shoes are being shown as drawn by cav regiments, Hundreds in a few returns! Are these not being used? of course they are wearing them. Why shoes, because it doesn't take as much leather to produce. I have never seen boots listed in returns after 61, that doesn't mean it didn't happen though. English imports show them coming in, but this is probably an English style, so again not high boots.
To sum up. sure boots were around and used but the evidence seems clear, boots would have been the exception to the rule for an enlisted man. Not as rare as Jaguar trousers but another Hollywood myth to debunk. Most of the guys I see out there don't even have period boots anyway.
Todd Kern


Would a Confederate trooper have been allowed to keep the footwear he was wearing when he enlisted? Specifically, I'm thinking about a moderately successfull farmer and merchant from C. Ky. in his early 30's. He certainly would have had the means to purchase his own pair of boots. I'm sure he would have already had a pair when he enlisted.

Second question, how long would a single pair of well-made civilian boots have lasted with daily wear before they would have needed replacing (either with another pair of private-purchase boots or with issued shoes)?

[Custerboy]

California volunteer cavalry regiments were given the option of boots or shoes. I'm researching which were more popular.

[T.Kern]

yes, the federal supply was different than the South.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

In the Federal OR’s for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1865, approximately 8.3 million pairs of bootees (2.2 million were pegged, 6.1 million sewn) were purchased; 2.6 million pairs of boots (1.1 million pegged, 1.5 million sewn) were purchased, and approximately 155,000 pairs of brogans were purchased.

Curt
Boots on the Ground Mess

[T.Kern]

What do they consider the difference between a brogan and a bootee?

Hallo!

In the Federal OR’s for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1865, approximately 8.3 million pairs of bootees (2.2 million were pegged, 6.1 million sewn) were purchased; 2.6 million pairs of boots (1.1 million pegged, 1.5 million sewn) were purchased, and approximately 155,000 pairs of brogans were purchased.

Curt
Boots on the Ground Mess

[tmattimore]

I have rarely seen the term brogan used in military documents or returns mostly booties or shoes. I have also never seen the term bootees used in civilian footwear documents usualy shoes, strong shoes and on occasion brogans. Most likely they were invoiced as brogans and they were then listed as such. Heer Schmidts figures show the proportion for the last year, of those boots made many if not all were 10 to 12 inch tall. I do not belive any of what we now call cav boots would have been purchased.
As to longevity it is not likely that a boot would have lasted more then three months under combat conditions
Tom

[RJSamp]

When Pleasonton relieved Colonel Brown of his Brigade the morning of October 23, 1864 Byram's Ford, Big Blue River, Missouri.....he came up to Phillip, who would be the new brigadier and asked what he was doing. Phillip replied that he was changing from his boots to his slippers in order to lead a dismounted charge against the confederates.

In the 21st Infantry Wisconsin book, the Private (Otto, the Author) turned down his first pair of "Government Shoes" in favor of his own boots. They wore out in a few months (actually he ruined the heels/backs of the boots standing too close to a fire), and he drew a pair of Governments. Then he took a pair of boots off of dead CSA officer and wore those.

I simply wear brogans, haven't had any trouble with the horse equipments yet.....

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

At any rate, Quartermaster records sometimes show the term "brogans" as listed separately from "bootees" on records and contracts- and sometimes also list "negro brogans." I assume, or infer, from the distinction, and the lower prices, that they were a "lower" quality and "lower" priced shoe.
IMHO, the records are not entirely clear.
As with many "terms," custom, education, usage, habit, etc., seems to have all contributed to a "confusion of terms" at times (such as gun, musket, rifle-musket, rifled-musket, rifled and sighted musket, rifle, artillery rifle, fusil, fusee, fuzee, musketoon, carbine...)

Shoot, IMHO, "History" is not always clear let alone the Civil War Community on "shoes, bootees, and brogans..." ;) :) :rolleyes:

From the February 2, 1833 edition of the BATON ROUGE GAZETTE:

Selling off at Cost! The subscribers wishing to relinquish their present line of business, offer to sell their stock of Hats, Shoes and Clothing at cost, to wit; 2 cases Fur Hats, 4 cases White Wool Hats, 2 cases Black Wool Hats, 4 cases boots, 3 cases Calf Brogans, 1 case Ladies Walking shoes, 100 pairs Russett Brogans, 100 pairs Negro Brogans, 50 pairs Pramella Shoes, 100 Pairs Mens Calf shoes, 1 case Umbrellas, and the remaining stock of seasonable Clothing, Ball and Briesler.

And another:

Surviving business papers regarding the confinement of Archibald Calder Baynard (b. 1798) as a patient in the state mental hospital in Columbia. Benjamin T.D. Lawton assumed responsibility for overseeing Baynard's financial affairs during this time. Receipts dated October 15, 1842, document the purchase of forty-three pairs of "Negro Brogans" for $38.70.

Curt
I say Potatoe, You Say Potato, Mess

[tmattimore]

From The Organization of the Boot and Shoe Industry in Massachusttts Before 1875. By Blanche Evans Hazard

"The shoe which Henry Wilson" (later to be vice president of the U.S. ed note) "manufactured was a cheap brogan for Southern plantation slaves, needing simply cutting, closing of short seams on uppers, and lasting, in order to make them ready to ship. His customers were in Boston, Hartford, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Camden and Charleston, S.C., Augusta and Savannah GA., Montgomery ALA., St Louis and New Orleans"

" His output increased from 18,000 that year,(1838) his first year of manufacturing, to 58,000 pair in 1845: and from employing 18 hands in 1838 he raised the number to 52 in 1845. By 1847, he made 122,000 pair with 109 hands working for him."

It is just my opinion but I belive the term brogan became so associated with cheaply made shoes for the slave and West Indian trade, that it was avoided as much as possible in purchasing records in spite of the fact that the above description applies quite well to the wartime contract shoes purchased in vast quantities.
Tom