Holes & Tears in Uniforms

[NMVolunteer]

Re: Holes & Tears in Uniforms

I suppose that, like somebody previously stated, it depends on the situation but generally I feel its not more authentic to intentionally have holes and broken uniform which is what was being debated here in the UK.

thanks.

It's authentic, if acid-washed jeans represent the proper cycle of wear and tear on denim pants. Soldiers did not intentionally poke holes in their trousers, so it would make sense if we did not do the same. Wear and tear from activities at events are another matter altogether, but that only occurs over time.

[john duffer]

Re: Holes & Tears in Uniforms

" Wear and tear from activities at events are another matter altogether, but that only occurs over time. "

One hopes that's the case but I once received a very nice Federal frock from a gentleman I shantn't name on Friday and wore it to a LH at Fort Donelson next day. Sitting by the fire I smelled bacon cooking and realized the greasy rag on my thigh was burning and I could see sky blue pants through the frock. The unnamed gentleman sent me a piece of fabric and I patched it from the inside. I wouldn't have done it on purpose but it did add character.

[rbruno]

Re: Holes & Tears in Uniforms

Paul brings up a point I was thinking about and wasn't sure if it happened. I have seen returns, as many of us probably have, of worn out equipment and ordnance being sent back to the depots for repair or probably for parts. But, I don't think I have ever seen a report of worn out uniforms being returned. Has anyone come across original documentation of uniforms being returned? If not, then if soldier "A" had a worn out pair of pants and was issued new pants, and soldier "B" just had a hole, could "A" give "B" his pants to make a patch? If that was the case and the soldiers were originally issued the pants at the same time, I guess it is very possible for the patches to match the rest of the material in the pants or whatever was being patched.

[CompanyWag]

Re: Holes & Tears in Uniforms

Another thought: Companies employing soldiers as tailors performing alterations of issue clothing for fit would have a ready source of odd pieces of uniform cloth for repairs. If these soldiers also performed major modifications (IE: removing the skirt of a uniform coat or cape of a great coat, etc.) even more material would become available for use. It would not be hard to imagine soldiers so detailed being provident enough to save these larger scraps for future use.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Holes & Tears in Uniforms

Paul brings up a point I was thinking about and wasn't sure if it happened. I have seen returns, as many of us probably have, of worn out equipment and ordnance being sent back to the depots for repair or probably for parts. But, I don't think I have ever seen a report of worn out uniforms being returned. Has anyone come across original documentation of uniforms being returned? If not, then if soldier "A" had a worn out pair of pants and was issued new pants, and soldier "B" just had a hole, could "A" give "B" his pants to make a patch? If that was the case and the soldiers were originally issued the pants at the same time, I guess it is very possible for the patches to match the rest of the material in the pants or whatever was being patched.

There might be a report of uniforms being inspected and rejected before issue, but they were treated differently from other items of equipment. In the U.S. army, clothing was personal property paid for from the soldier's clothing allowance, and any upkeep thereafter his responsibility.

Haversacks, canteens, knapsacks, tentage, tools, &c. were also provided by the Quartermaster, but were classified as company property or "camp and garrison equipage." They belonged to the company and the soldier only paid for them if they were lost or damaged through his neglect. If responsibility was questioned, a Board of Survey might be held to determine who paid.

Ordnance was handled similarly, but all ordnance was the personal responsibility of the last officer to sign for it -- typically the captain. If it was damaged, lost, or destroyed, he had to explain why, or charge it to the responsible enlisted man (through court martial or Board of Survey), or pay for it out of his own pocket.

This didn't hold true for both sides throughout the war. By December 1863 (G.O. 158), canteens, haversacks, and knapsacks in the Confederate army were included on the schedule of costs for Ordnance. In the U.S. army, I've seen entries in late '64 that included haversacks and knapsacks on Inventories of Effects for deceased soldiers. When the U.S. army demobilized in 1865 honorably discharged soldiers were allowed, under separate general orders, to keep their knapsacks and haversacks and, if they desired, buy their weapons at substantially less than cost, with the leathers thrown in for free.

This all involved a lot of bureaucracy in the way of quarterly, monthly, bimonthly &c. returns, especially on the federal side where pay was more regular and the dollar held more value. But what started before the war as a way for the bean counters in Washington to keep track of every tent peg and tompion from Walla Walla to Fort Huachuca ended up being a fairly good system for maintaining property management and personal responsibility throughout the war -- not to mention a running concept of who needed more what where and when -- in an army of previously unimagined size...

[woodsda]

Re: Holes & Tears in Uniforms

I think looking at photographic evidence helps support the argument that uniforms were well cared for. Look at the 3 confederate prisoners at Gettysburg. While nothing is known, it would not be a far assumption that they were wearing the same suit of clothes they started the campaign with. From what I can see, they look in pretty good condition given the campaign, weather, and a battle. I have zoomed in on a pant leg and see no tears, or patches. Now I know this is a very small sampling, but it does show that uniforms were certainly cared for as well as footwear.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Holes & Tears in Uniforms

" Wear and tear from activities at events are another matter altogether, but that only occurs over time. "

One hopes that's the case but I once received a very nice Federal frock from a gentleman I shantn't name on Friday and wore it to a LH at Fort Donelson next day. Sitting by the fire I smelled bacon cooking and realized the greasy rag on my thigh was burning and I could see sky blue pants through the frock. The unnamed gentleman sent me a piece of fabric and I patched it from the inside. I wouldn't have done it on purpose but it did add character.

Duffer,

One can imagine such an accident resulting in the metamorphosis of a frock into a jacket!
...and we know there is evidence of such conversions!

[mike_zulu]

Re: Holes & Tears in Uniforms

That thought had occurred to me also, since there were unusable uniform material around, wouldn't it make sense to use the fabric or leather for repairs as it would have been issued around the same time