CS Officer Sashes

[Agate]

Hallo Kameraden! I split this off, as I think it would make a better thread than just a reply. Curt-Heinrich Schmidt, Moderator.


I agree again Tad, especially with regard to the demand for military goods. Do have a question for Kevin. What would be the difference realistically between an officer of the Army of the Cumberland, and the Army of the Potomac in regard to their kit? Wouldn't ask you to post any of Mr. Tobeys article, am curious though, sounds interesting.

In regard to the demand for military goods.

Not to change the subject at all, however, as I feel there to be somewhat of a relationship, and am somewhat interested in the responses to other threads of those of you who do portray officers "on campaign" in regard to clothing. Might I ask a question?

If the question is inappropriate to this thread, moderators please forgive, and my apologies to the original post(er). I am just curious, and somewhat slow.

In the Western armies officers are shown in hundreds of portraits taken at places like Atlanta, Louisville, Corinth, Nashville, and St. Louis. Hardly areas in the far rear of the war effort in the West.

Many of these portraits show officers dressed in commercial blouses, however, others show officers dressed in regulation uniforms, some, complete with feathers in their hats, sashes, et. et. I imagine if we popped over to eBay we might find portraits such as these with little effort.

From past threads I somewhat get the impression that "campaign officers" tend to uniform themselves with enlisted clothing, commercial blouses et. And tend not to procure for themselves regulation uniforms in order to capture the "campaign look." In the threads that I happened to view, and I might be mistaken, this seemed to even be encouraged by some to those folks who posed the question of what to purchase as correct.

We really don't have too much of a laundry list of what officers carried with them while on "campaign" as Kevin stated, and if what was carried on campaign was somehow any different then was carried while not on campaign. I do, BTW, understand they were authorized some army items.

My concern is that we are ignoring commercial ready made military clothing in our search for what is proper and correct.


We are of course aware that officers purchased their own clothing. What I think would be a surprise to some members is that enlisted men did too. The soldier of the United States paid for the clothing he wore, nothing was free, and the word "issue" is, IMHO, misunderstood sometimes. Knapsacks and hat brass being BTW, the exceptions, they having to be returned. I would recommend a review of the Regulations online at the MOA/UMich site for more info if someone has an interest.

It should be understood too that this market for commercial goods was not limited to officers. There is an image attributed to members of the 21st Ohio in EOG, within the firearms section as they are armed with Colt's Revolving Rifles. These men are however not members of the 21st Ohio. They are members of the Pearl Street Rifles of Cincinnati, a militia unit, and everything they are wearing and carrying is of a commercial nature, including the "Regulation" items. This company provided its own uniforms and equipment. As early as May 1861 clothing houses, hardware stores, et. carried regulation items in Cincinnati and catered to anybody with an interest and a dollar.


Some of us, I believe, are under the impression that commercial military clothing was of the highest calibre in regard to manufacture and construction, having examined at least twenty and having owned three Federal officers line coats my opinion is keep looking at it. In my experience commercial military clothing tends to be less tailored than citizens clothing of somewhat the same professional "status" if you will. There are exceptions of course.

The following was written by Rutherford B. Hayes to one Dr. Joseph Webb on June 10, 1861. Housed in the Hayes library at Fremont Ohio.


"P.S.--Order at Sprague's a major's uniform for infantry;
they have my measure; see Rhodes; also, a blue flannel blouse,
regulation officer's; pants to be large and very loose about the
legs; to be done the last of this week, or as soon as convenient.
Blouse and pants first to be done."

Sprague's was John Sprague's of Cincinnati, reputed to be the finest clothier in the West. Uniforms Id'd to both Grant and Sherman survive cut and manufactured by this house. The Camp Dennison Ohio Museum last year had on display the uniform of Col. Thomas Heath of the 5th OVC. Am very familiar with this garment as it is owned by a dear friend. Having had the privilege of examining it several times, am still awed by the quality, it is however the exception to the several other Id'd Federal officers coats owned by this collector.

On the other end of the commercial clothing spectrum we have the "house" of John H. Shillito. Shillito was a Cincinnati hardware dealer who found out quickly that money could be made from the sale of commercial military goods. Several commercial caps as well as other items including a vest survives that bear the name. His first notice in the Cincinnati papers for military goods advertised 500 regulation gray blankets directly from New York. Shilito wasn't a tailor, he was a merchant, and bought to re-sell.

The following is taken from "For Honor and Glory" The letters of Brig. Genl. William Haines Lytle. (UK press, pg. 123) in a letter written to "Bessie" from Huntsville Ala. on June 19, 1862.

"Tell Josie not to worry about my clothing as there is now plenty here. Several establishments have been opened where officers can get complete suits both uniform and underclothing at prices not much, if any, above those at home."

I think we must at least partially allow that these establishments may have dealt with ready-made garments.

So, if ready made commercial clothing was indeed available so close to the front (during the period of Lytle's letter, Huntsville was the front), and I think it wouldn't make for a hard case to prove that as the war went on, more of these goods would have been made available, why do we not encourage more folks to procure goods that were marketed directly to officers, campaigning or otherwise? Considering too that not all of the garments were of the highest calibre and probably more affordable than we realize.

Have noted that the "Soldier's three," image from the regimental of the 105th Ohio is sometimes pointed to as an example of Federal officers on campaign. Also understand that the argument has been made that this image "shows" the use of enlisted gear and uniforms by officers in the field, about as in the "field" as one can get. Problem with this however is that there is nothing in this image to suggest that anything shown is other than commercially manufactured goods.

Would be interested in folks thoughts on this providing it is allowed.

Regards,

John

John Sarver
Cin.O.

BTW, am most familiar with the Cincinnati market during the war, and am fortunate as it was the biggest market for goods in the West and the center of the Western economy. The points of my question however apply to other markets, as well as military districts.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Officers Clothing

Hallo Kameraden!

"From past threads I somewhat get the impression that "campaign officers" tend to uniform themselves with enlisted clothing, commercial blouses et. And tend not to procure for themselves regulation uniforms in order to capture the "campaign look." In the threads that I happened to view, and I might be mistaken, this seemed to even be encouraged by some to those folks who posed the question of what to purchase as correct."

Hmmmm.
Although I avoid it like the Plague... I sometimes am seen as a lieutenant or captain.

To be overly brief and to over-generalize...
The "regs" as well as "culture and custom" can call for officers to toe the line. A volunteer army, the effect or lack of effect of how strict a commanding officer was or was not, the strains and drains of time "in the field," period in the War, and the individual choices, finances, likes and dislikes, and druthers of citizen and professional soldiers all complicate this discussion!

For my personal choices, I wear either a junior officer's dress coat, or a private purchase/commercial 5 button blouse with external pockets, or a private purchase/commercial "infantry shell jacket."
However, I do not wear officer trousers, but either sky blue or dark blue enlisted trousers.
I wear a McDowell style forage cap, or a couple or three black civilian "plug" style hats.
I have an officer's swordbelt and plate that is decorated with machine stitching designs that goes with an officer's sash and dress coat; and a plain leather officer's swordbelt and plate for the the 5 button blouse.
I have a fancier officer's haversack with embossed flap, and a plainer officer's haversack.
I carry either a mint original German copy of the M1850 Foot Officer's, a higher quality (but still notsogood) copy of the M1850, or a repro of a German copy of the French M1821.

I must admit that which of these combinations I wear or use sometimes is at random, mood, or whim. Other times it depends on the army, unit, and campaign. Sometimes on the persona or impression as to what the "man" could have afforded and what about the man would cause him to chose one thing over another. Sometines, I go through period images and find an image to "borrow the look of" just like I sometimes do for my more frequently seen "enlistedman" impressions.

If there is method to this madness, which I may doubt, it lies in my trying to capture the "look and feel" of some of the men (officers and enlisted) I see in period images moreso than what I see on men (officers and enlisted) around me today (Not a criticism of anyone, or anyone's impressions- just an explanation of what "I" do- even when seeing top notch and brilliant impressions. I hope ye comrades appreciate the difference and the effort.)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[marlin teat]

Re: Officers Clothing

I recently picked up a copy of "Eches of Battle - the Atlanta Campaign" (Blue Acorn Press, 2004) and I highly recommend it for photo documentation of the western Federal of that time period. The book contains over 200 photos, the majority of which I have never seen before - very few of the Barnard photos are included. Many of the photos are of Ohio troops and quite a few were taken at Chattanooga in the spring of 1864. This book would make a good study for both officer and enlisted man.

[Agate]

Re: Officers Clothing

Marlin,

Couldn't agree with you more. Blue Acorn, IMHO, is just the best. Several of their titles are must haves. I enjoy those images as well, and we wouldn't have much of an opportunity to view them if it were not for the Blue Acorn folks, as most are in private hands.

Regards,

John

John Sarver
Cin.O.

[J_Étienne]

Sashes

I apologize if this is a repeat post, but I did try doing a search and nothing worked for what I was after.

My question is, how exactly are you supposed to tie a sash? I can find plenty of vendors selling sashes, and plenty of photos of officers wearing them, but none of the photos are clear enough to discern that sort of detail, and nowhere online can I find any sort of instructions. All I have is the uniform regs stating that the sash is to be worn wrapped around the waist twice and tied on the left hip.

Any suggestions or tips?

Thanks,
Joseph Stevens

[mmartin4600]

Re: Sashes

See if this helps. Like the post says, it's easier to do it than explain it. It's also easier with an extra pair of hands.

[Kykeydet12]

Re: Officers Clothing

I recently picked up a copy of "Eches of Battle - the Atlanta Campaign" (Blue Acorn Press, 2004) and I highly recommend it for photo documentation of the western Federal of that time period. The book contains over 200 photos, the majority of which I have never seen before - very few of the Barnard photos are included. Many of the photos are of Ohio troops and quite a few were taken at Chattanooga in the spring of 1864. This book would make a good study for both officer and enlisted man.

hey just came across this subject, I bought this book from the writer richard Baumgartener. He has several other book that show tons of pictures from both theaters. Echoes of battle has a ton of pictures, most of them ohio and alot of indiana units. it does however have alotof pictures of entire units in hasty static camps.

[1stMaine]

Re: Officers Clothing

Comrade Sarver,

I would respectfully disagree with you on one small point, that being the statement that

The soldier of the United States paid for the clothing he wore, nothing was free, and the word "issue" is, IMHO, misunderstood sometimes.

From my several readings of the regulations, my understanding is that a clothing allowance is made for every enlisted man for the term of his enlistment. This allowance is spread out in intervals of " X number items" per year. These items are issued free of charge to the enlisted man, and are considered a part of his renumeration, along with his pay, etc, in return for his enlistment contract.

The soldier may draw against that allowance based upon his needs, and will only be charged for items if or when he EXCEEDS the allowance in any given period. Thus, he has a choice to make when he needs a new shirt, or socks, or whatever. If he still hasn't drawn up to his allowance, he can request what he needs through channels and have it charged against his allowance. If he has already drawn up to his allowance, he can still draw more, but that will be noted and charged to his next pay, OR he can simply purchase it from a commercial vendor or make it himself, etc.

That the articles of clothing are considered to be a part and parcel OF his pay, that he is OWED them by the government, may be seen in that portion which states that, if a soldier has NOT used his allowance, he might receive the balance due as cash in lieu of drawing more clothing. It's the same with rations, the regulations point out that returning prisoners of war are entitled to be recompensed so much per day for rations not received from the government. It was added to their accounts.

Certainly extant images show commercial items being used by enlisted men, and that is something we certainly ought to see more of. However, I am more and more of a mind that the use of enlisted items by officers, although noted in certain cases, is by far a rarity and that, many times, what we might perceive to be an enlisted item is in fact a commercial purchase.

For example, consider the issue of General grant's "enlisted blouse". He writes that

"When I had left camp that morning I had not expected so soon the result that was then taking place, and consequently was in rough garb. I was without a sword, as I usually was when on horseback on the field, and wore a soldier's blouse for a coat, with the shoulder straps of my rank to indicate to the army who I was. When I went into the house I found General Lee. We greeted each other, and after shaking hands took our seats. I had my staff with me, a good portion of whom were in the room during the whole of the interview."

Many take that to mean Grant was wearing an issue blouse. A common sack coat, and some use it to justify their own wearing of it.

However, many years ago, Brian Pohanka & I were discussing this, and he confirmed my suspicions by showing me a copy of an order that Grabnt and his staff had placed with a commercial concern for blouses because of the heat, coupled with the expense of using a dress coat all the time. That this is what Grant was wearing may be further confirmed by Horace Porter in his "Campaigning with Grant, where he writes:

"THE weather had become so warm that the general and most of the staff had ordered thin, dark-blue flannel blouses to be sent to them to take the place of the heavy uniform coats which they had been wearing. The summer clothing had arrived, and was now tried on. The general’s blouse, like the others, was of plain material, single-breasted, and had four regulation brass buttons in front. It was substantially the coat of a private soldier, with nothing to indicate the rank of an officer except the three gold stars of a lieutenant-general on the shoulder-straps. He wore at this time a turn-down white linen collar and a small, black butterfly cravat, which was hooked on to his front collar-button. The general, when he put on the blouse, did not take the pains to see whether it fitted him or to notice how it looked, but thought only of the comfort it afforded, and said, “Well, this is a relief,” and then added: “I have never taken as much satisfaction as some people in making frequent changes in my outer clothing. I like to put on a suit of clothes when I get up in the morning, and wear it until I go to bed, unless I have to make a change in my dress to meet company. I have been in the habit of getting one coat at a time, putting it on and wearing it every day as long as it looked respectable, instead of using a best and a second best. I know that is not the right way to manage, but a comfortable coat seems like an old friend and I don’t like to change it. The general had also received a pair of light, neatly fitting calfskin boots, to which he seemed to take a fancy; thereafter he wore them most of the time in place of his heavy top-boots, putting on the latter only when he rode out in wet weather."

What to make of the disparity between what Grant says in his memoirs and what Porter writes? Simply this: Grant was writing "post bellum", whilst in the terminal stage of throat cancer and also while using increasing doses of pain medicine. He was writing for the audience, in simple terms, and probably figured the audience would understand he ws referring to a "style", vice an actual issue blouse. He was also trying to point out the difference in the scene, with Lee in full dress and he in field garb. Later writers would also use this analogy to show how the "blue collar machinsts" took down the "southron gentry", etc.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I thought it might be germane to the discussion. It also points out that, whilst contemporary accounts are always to be given considerable weight, they must also be viewed in context and not always at face value.

Respects,

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Officers Clothing

Hallo!

An interesting point and discussion...

IMHO, that was hold-over from the 18th century British concept of "pay and subsistence" as "pay" less "stoppages" or "off-reckonings. How this worked was that the private was "paid" eight pence per day, of which six pence was considered "subsistence" and the remaining two pence (tuppence) was "off-reckonings" that after certain "administratrive deductions" were given to the regimental colonel to be sued to pay for the soldier's clothing. Anything left over, became the colonel's perquisite.
The soldier was entitled to a complete set of clothing each year that was paid for out of the "off-reckonings.' Any additional clothing beyond the "basic entitlement" were paid for by "Stoppages" from his "subsistence."

Taking a look at its "hold-over during the Civil War...

A (white) federal private in say 1863 received $13 in pay and one "ration" a month plus a $3.50 clothing allowance. (if he "used" less, he could get a reimbursement. If he used more, or "lost" gear, he could be docked pay.)

This became a problem with the passage of the "Militia Act" of July 17, 1862, whose fifteenth section directs that :

"All persons who have been or shall be hereatfer enrolled in the service of the United States under this act shall receive the pay and rations now allowed by law to soldiers, according to their respective grades: Provided, That persons of African descent, who under this law shall be employed, shall receive ten dollars per month and one ration, three dollars of which monthly pay be in clothing.

The amount of pay allowed to infantry soldiers (white) at the passage of this act was $13.00 per month, and an allowance in clothing of $3.50 per month, and one ration each."

(It would later be "fixed" in 1864...)

At any rate, IMHO, we need to look at that carefully so it does not become a matter of semantics...
The soldier was "entitled" to a fixed rate of clothing per cycle per year,,, but the fixed rate was paid for by the $3.50 monthly clothing allowance. So, yes, the soldier drew against his fixed rate, but the "value" of the fixed rate allowance was set by the $3.50 "'stoppages" (to borrow the 18th century word). Use less, get some of the $3.50 back. Use more, get docked from the $13 pay to balance the account/ledger. (Well, by "issuance cycle" and not really by neat blocks of months- depending upon the article of clothing.)

IMHO, the clothing items were not quite "free of charge." The $3.50, in theory, a month covered the entitled or allowed type and multiples of clothing... But, IMHO, I would not want to say that the soldier physically "paid" for his clothing if "paid" is defined by taking money out of his pocket. Rather, the cost of the clothing was "covered" by the $3.50 a month he never saw unless he used less than the entitlement/allowance when the books were balanced or he mustered out with the dollar and cents difference. (And if he used more, the system deducted the cost from any pay still owed the soldier...)

But, I suppose we can debate whether this system had the solider "pay?" Meaning, a white soldier in 1863 did not receive $16.50 a month in is pocket, of which he was expected to "pay" out $3.50 for clothes. IMHO, the system said "Soldier you are paid $13.00 a month and have a $3.50 clothing allowance ." Is the "pay" actually, then, a true $16.50 with a "$3.50 deduction," or just the $13.00 a month the Federal white soldier hoped to see ideally every see two months? (Glass half full, or half empty?) ;) :)

Curt

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Officers Clothing

Let's try this again

Enlisted soldiers of the Regular Army were entitled to a set number of different items of clothing per year and over the course of their enlistment, as discussed in the Regulations. The value of each item (which is not given in the Regs, but you can see different prices in Scott's and Kautz) was established annually in General Orders and more or less reflected the cost price. It was this amount that was deducted or added to pay whenever clothing accounts were balanced, which itself varied from at the end of enlistment (Regulars) to each pay day (the practice in some Volunteer units).

Enlisted volunteers received a clothing allowance of $3.50 a month. The monetary value of clothing drawn (not the individual items) was to be entered in the Clothing Book. Before the end of the war the allowance increased to $4 a month, but didn't come close to keeping up with inflation. Allen Morgan Geer's diary entry for April 3, 1865, is probably just one of many pointing this out: "Drew and issued clothing. The price of clothing has been increased to nearly fifty per cent the July 1st 64 schedule and hence it costs one far more than his allowance to clothe himself properly."

He wasn't exaggerating. A "Statement showing the highest and lowest prices" paid over the course of the war in Meigs' 1865 Report (OR, S3, V5, p. 286) shows that caps had gone from 35 cents to $1.04, flannel shirts from 45 cents to $3.01, lined sack coats from $2.10 to $5.09, woolen blankets from $2.18 to $7.75, &c.

But by the end of the war shorting volunteers on their clothing allowance may have been just another way to cover the cost of bounties.

Officers of course had to cover everything out of their pay, including food (a whole 'nother topic). The 1864-65 volume of the Army and Navy Journal carries in its letters to the editor a running theme of bitterness over the rise in prices relative to officer's pay and the painful effect this had on themselves and their families.

[1stMaine]

Re: Officers Clothing

Comrades,

Interesting and interestinger...

It would be right interesting to take a look at, for example, what the government was paying for certain items and then see how much they charged the soldier for the same. Be a neat way to help fund the war effort by making a profit off the soldier for the government..... In other words, if the government paid $1.00 for item "X", did they then charge the soldier $1.00 or perhaps $1.10? Be REALLY interesting to see if they charged the higher costs due to inflation for items already in stock, as some merchants do. It's a common strategy in business to reproce items when the retail price goes up, even if they were purchased at a lower wholesale price than what the maker is currently charging the retailer. That's a "hidden" profit for the business and quite common.

If the clothing allowances was used as described by Mike & Curt, did the various states then bill the federal government for their costs in providing initial outfits? It was common for, example, Maine to completely clothe and arm her regiments BEFORE they were mustered into Federal service. The AG's reports are full of lists of items issued, contracts, let, etc, and many of these are also reflected in the legislative records of those years. Hmmmmmmm.......

To take a slight off-topic, let me tell you how it was some 100+ years later., albeit with the Navy, vice Army, but, I believe, illustrative.

My entire initial issue of clothing, to include my Seabag, was issued to me at no cost. However, all my personal items, such as soap, razor, comb, shoe polish, etc, were deducted from my pay. To wit: My company was mustered and marched to the Navy Exchange. We were given a "shopping list" with specific brands and amounts on them, and each list had our name, nunmber, company number, etc on the top. When we went through the doors, their was a line of dity bags all full of these items. We were each handed one bag, told to verify it contained the items on our list, then sent into line at the cashier's, We presented our lists, signed them, then were given a receipt and sent outside to fall in and then marched back to the barracks. The ditty bag and it's contents were deducted from our first pay check, as was also our first hair cut, and every succeeding one.

Anyway, after that, each month we got a "clothing allowance" in our pay. This was to be used to replace such items as were needed, to pay for tailoring, repairs, etc. After our initial issue, ALL of our clothing items were to be purchased by usm excepting for work-related issue items, like foul weather jackets, flight suits, helmets, etc, which were ship's property and had to be returned when unserviceable or when transferring, etc.

I just thought that it might be of some interest to see how some things don't change very much over time, etc...

[johnnyreb43nc]

CS Officer Sashes

Hi Pards
I have used the research facility but have been unable to find the answer i am looking for, any advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance.

I will be portraying a confederate, junior staff officer in a couple of weeks time.
Is it correct for me to wear a maroon sash , and if so should it be made of wool or silk or either.
thanks,
Jason Tailford
18th Virginia Infantry
Nottoway Grays

Temperance Mess.

[1stMaine]

Re: officers sash.

Comrade,

Every commissioned officer is authorised to wear the sash. It is a part of his badge of rank, and according to regulations is to be worn on all occasions of duty.

The color of an officer's sash, with two exceptions, is "claret" or "wine", and the material is silk. General officers are allowed a buff colored silk sash and medical officers one of green silk.

respects,

[johnnyreb43nc]

Re: officers sash.

Sir
Thanks for your answer.
I will now obtain the appropriate sash as you have described,
Once again thankyou,
Jason Tailford
Co G
18th Virginia Infantry
Nottoway Grays

Temperance Mess.

[Rob Weaver]

Re: officers sash.

That having been said, look at some documentation for your specific unit portrayal. Sashes are one of the things that got boxed up and sent home. Don't let having or not having one become a show-stopper for you.