If you haveen't read it. You should. Written for US volunteer Officers it's sort of an "army manual for dummies."

Here's some neat stuff:

On the March - 14.      When it is intended that the whold column should close up and halt, the head of the column will be halted silently, without bugle call or signal. The word will be passed to the rear to close up and halt, and when the last regiment of the brigade has closed up and halted, its bugler will sound the halt as an indication to the head of the column that the last regiment has closed up to its proper interval.

Revised Regulations of the Army
85.  Every article excepting arms and acouterments, belonging to the Regiment, is to be marked with the number and name of the regiment.

104.  Cartridge boses and bayonet-scabbards will be polished with blacking: varnish is injurious to the leather, and will not be used.

105.  ...Bright barrels will be kept clean and free from rust without polishing them; care should be taken in rubbing not to bruse or bend the barrel...


111.  The knapsacks will also be marked upon the inner side with the letter of the company and the number of the soldier, on such part as tmay be readily observed at inspections.

112.  Haversacks will be marked upon the flap with the number and name of the regiment, the letter of the company and the number of the soldier in black letters and figures. And each soldier must, at all times be provided with a haversack and a canteen; and will exhibit them at all inspections.


122.  On marches and in the field, the only mess furniture of the soldier will be one tin plate, one tin cup, one knife, fork and spoon, to each man, to be carried by himself.


Available through Stackpole books. Good stuff. I pull mine out about this time every year.

One of Butterfield's pards had a dang fine letter that used to make the online rounds. That letter described the inner workings of companies, especially the additional duties assigned to the five sergeants.

Craighill's Pocket Companion, also reprinted by Stackpole, is another nice resource.  

I'm curious as to how closely these regulations were followed. I've seen knapsacks and canteens with various markings, more so than haversacks. But again, how widespread was the practice?~Gary

Original knapsacks, not so much. But, there's documentation of Federal units "recapturing" their knapsacks. Original haversacks, most have some kind of identification inside the flap.

"Original haversacks, most have some kind of identification inside the flap."

Grumpy,

That's interesting. Unless I'm mistaken haversacks were not included with the ordnance equipment the regiment retained ownership of, even after it was issued to the troops. I would think a haversack would have a very short lifespan. You sure don't see many surviving examples around. I wonder if the soldiers marked them for their own benefit?

As an aside, since rifle muskets didn't have serial numbers, I'll bet some weird stuff went on, when it was time to inventory ordnance. That scene from "Mash", when they were counting mess trays, comes quickly to mind!  

 

Bill, you had to know this was coming...  

Ordnance includes the muskets and leathers and was never "issued" to the men, but remained the personal responsibility of the company commander.

Haversacks and knapsacks (also canteens) were QM-issued.  They began the war as "clothing" but "company property", then became "camp and garrison equipage," remaining company property, like hat brass.  That's why the regs say to number them.  You could go ahead and ink your name on your wool or rubber blanket, but that's because they're clothing out of your personal allowance.

I've seen a few "inventory of effects" that list knapsacks and haversacks as among the possessions of dead soldiers.  This shows either a degree of confusion at the time (which we can all appreciate) or that, at some point in the war, these items migrated from the C&GE category back to clothing and were no longer considered company property.  This is further suggested by their appearance on the clothing list in the QM's annual report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1865.

People went through a lot of these items.  The same year-end report shows over 868,000 knapsacks, 522,000 haversacks, and 845,000 canteens in the depots, unissued, on that date.  Total production over the course of the war is reported at 3,583,324 knapsacks, 4,564,608 haversacks, and 5,200,614 canteens (OR SIII, V5, p. 285).

For the northern soldier the implications are interesting.  Except for a relatively few scenarios (like the march through the Carolinas) you should probably never look too ratty, because the production levels indicate a pretty high rate of replacement, especially given the number of troops in garrison and on the lines of communications (at the end of the war, for example, the north had about a million men in the ranks, but only perhaps 20-30% in the armies of Grant and Sherman).

For the Confederates it's a different story, one that I'm less acquainted with.

Quote :

Haversacks will be marked upon the flap with the number and name of the regiment, the letter of the company and the number of the soldier in black letters and figures.

I've often wondered if that was a typo, or had something to do with the several varieties of unpainted haversacks issued to federal troops.

Can't speak of the modern army, but 25+ years ago that separation between different types of property was still distinct, at least on paper. Sometimes the items in various Common Tables of Allowances raised an eyebrow or two, and a fellow knew to wear out that organizational gear before his own, if possible.

Quote :

Charles Heath wrote : [quote] Can't speak of the modern army, but 25+ years ago that separation between different types of property was still distinct, at least on paper. Sometimes the items in various Common Tables of Allowances raised an eyebrow or two, and a fellow knew to wear out that organizational gear before his own, if possible.

Charles,

Yeah, the good old TA-50 gear. Those property rules were still in effect six years ago, when I got out. There was some overlap in TA-50 and clothing issues. As an example, when I took Basic Training at Fort Bragg, I was issued a field jacket with my clothing issue and a second field jacket with my TA-50 gear. I still have that old TA-50 field jacket. It was the old M-1949 with the collar that would lie down flat. When I left Bragg, I turned in the new field jacket and kept the old one. I wore it until they switched to the BDU's in the 1980's.  

Bill, funny you should mention that, as I was thinking specifically of the organizational (OCIE?) field jacket from CIP. Had a special one that had seen a lot of use, and was a nice pea green from fading. It had lost that distinctive perma press stench at least 5 GIs prior to me, and was rather comfy. Not a grease stain on it anywhere. Best thing Uncle Same ever did was come up with that liner. Seems like it had a hood, and the M1949 models did not. The latter were popular when found.

To bring this back to the CW, one of these days I'd like to sew some pockets on my federal greatcoat. I see folks do this, and they make a handy looking place for gloves, scarf, and hands.

Quote :

Charles Heath wrote : To bring this back to the CW, one of these days I'd like to sew some pockets on my federal greatcoat. I see folks do this, and they make a handy looking place for gloves, scarf, and hands.

Charles,

I've got a Federal Frock Coat, I purchased used, that came with extra pockets sewn into the lining. They do come in handy. I've thought about adding a pocket to the inside waist band of a pair of my trousers, as a place to carry a wallet. I do believe I've seen that done, but I don't remember where.

BTW, are you an old enough fart to remember the term "Breaking Starch"? A foreign concept to modern soldiers.    

"Breaking Starch"?  Is that like "Breaking Wind?"

Back in my very brief service as a Midshipman 4th Class, USNR, we would receive our Trop White Longs double-starched from the cleaners -- i.e., so heavily starched that you had to peel the trouser legs and shirt sleeves apart, but carefully, so as not to wrinkle them prematurely.

The only pleasant aspect of this was the way we recycled the bags from the cleaners.  We would tape three or four together, fill them at the open gas jets in our antediluvian dorm rooms, attach ten feet of toilet paper, then take them up on the roof and release them into the starry night.  Generally they would drift a block or two before bursting into a roughly mushroom-shaped flame.  Pure poetry.  Ah, youth!

Quote :

GrumpyDave wrote : "Breaking Starch"?  Is that like "Breaking Wind?"

No Dave,

Breaking wind is a lot more pleasant, at least for the breaker!  

Quote :

BTW, are you an old enough fart to remember the term "Breaking Starch"? A foreign concept to modern soldiers.

I am, and that includes the pre-perma press khakis, too.

Quote :

Charles Heath wrote :   I am, and that includes the pre-perma press khakis, too.

God,

That means you remember the sin of having "fins" on your fatiques?

You know, when it comes to such things as material accountability, our precomputer Army wasn't much different than what existed during the Civil War. When you look at the Regs, they hadn't changed much. The short cuts and sins of 1965, were probably not much different in 1865. Another story the Soldiers didn't tell.      

"Another story the soldiers wouldn't tell."

Very true.  Another aspect of how the Internet has helped research is that it's led a lot of people to post diaries on genealogical websites that would never have otherwise seen publication.  You know what I mean -- all those journals with two or three line daily entries like:  "Weather cold and rainy.  Tent leaked.  Filled out monthly returns."  They think only the family could possibly care about g-g-grand uncle Wilbur's nine months of non-combat related service, but I think those are some of the best sources.  People wrote down what mattered to them on that day, with no particular view of posterity.  As a result they have a wealth of mundane details about things like paperwork and what happened to every cent of their pay.  Twenty years later, when they went to write their memoirs, all that got cast aside as of no general interest.  Little did they know that some day some maniac would actually try to reconstruct the minutiae of company administration -- and find it useful in other ways.

Cupcake,

In addition to that information, I believe there is a great treasure trove of soundly ignored brigade level data out there for the taking. Casey's admonition that the brigade was the "unit' of operations coupled with the modern notion most researchers seek no further (no apple jokes, please) than the regiment of interest could mean some real finds out there in relatively untouched brigade returns.

Maybe.    

--Last edited by Charles Heath on 2007-04-11 10:57:40 --