I get a little tired of ill researched reenactors derisively calling cavalrymen 'Yellowjackets' and making remarks about all of the yellow. Here's a diary quote for you to digest. I serve crow cold by the way.

Page 222 Mounting the First Nebraska, "Marching with the First Nebraska" a Civil War Diary by August Scherneckau

the 1st Nebraska Infantry became Mounted Rifles/cavalry beginning in November 1863.

"Friday November 6th [1863, in camp in St. Louis, Missouri] --Today the first cavalry equipment was handed out. The boys appear in the jackets with the yellow stripes. We also received the crossed sabers of the dragoons instead of the bugle, which the infantry wears on its hats.

(later on they receive sabers.....then revolvers......but August complains of the old muskets, cartridge boxes, et al while riding...)
(there's also a great quote on most of the regiment of infantrymen not being superb riders.....truly transportation to the battlefield as opposed to light cavalry fighting from the saddle.)

RJ Samp

I don't think anyone has much of a problem with the yellow on Union cavalry--original shell jackets are common enough for all to see, but it is the Confederate jackets with all that yellow--or red--that drive everyone crazy and leads to the names. Sure, some jackets did indeed have the colored trim (mostly officers) but how common was it really for enlisted men?
It is the rebels with all the color that gets the bad name.

Quote :

RJSamp wrote : I get a little tired of ill researched reenactors derisively calling cavalrymen 'Yellowjackets' and making remarks about all of the yellow. Here's a diary quote for you to digest. I serve crow cold by the way. RJ Samp

As Spence said, I don't think anyone suggests the yellow trimmed cavalry jackets weren't issued or worn during the War. On the other hand, the photographs taken of Federal cavalrymen, in the field, suggests sack coats were at least as common as the yellow trimmed jackets.

This makes perfect sense. According to Kautz, in 1863, a cavalry jacket cost $5.55; while an unlined sack coat cost $2.40 and a lined sack coat was $3.14. Based on the Quartermaster's Annual Report for the period July 1, 1863 to June 30, 1864, it seems 635,655 jackets for all branches, infantry, cavalry, artillery, invalid corps, and zouave; were issued; compaired to 2,099,684 lined and unlined sack coats.

On another matter, during this mid-war period, the Quartermaster also issued 33,164 wall tents, 136,442 common tents, and 801,996 shelter tents. Somebody was sleeping in all those common tents!

BTW RJ, I've asked you this before; but, why do you always sound so angry?        

Prices according to GO 364, November 12, 1863.

And those tent stats -- I am just so happy to see someone else finally looking through the ORs    

--Last edited by Michael Schaffner on 2008-12-10 16:15:26 --

I would put forward that many folks don't have a problem with tents, it is the use of the tent at events where we know they didn't have them.

What a shame the army didn't keep the green trim of the pre-war mounted infantry, thus the boys would have not been called yellowjackets, but green hornets. I have never seen an original green trimmed MSJ, but what a beautiful sight they must have been.  

Quote :

dustyswb wrote : I would put forward that many folks don't have a problem with tents, it is the use of the tent at events where we know they didn't have them.

Well, yes.  I absolutely agree.  Plus the number of folks who occupy them often presents an equal offense.  I once saw a cavalryman who had two A tents -- one for himself and his wife, and one for the two kids and extra gear.  Come to think of it, there was probably a third one somewhere for the horse.

What I like about stats is that they give us some tangible basis for our speculations.  The number of common and shelter tents Bill lists would house a couple of million men -- three quarters in the shelters.  If we don't know what a particular regiment had at a specific time, this is a little factoid that will, with others, help us vector in on a reasonable guess.

Same with jackets and blouses.  Every cavalryman might have had a nicely trimmed jacket at some time, but he probably also had a sack coat that was cheaper and more comfortable.  So based on the data it would seem that, all else being equal, you would no more likely see a jacket on a vedette than a farmer wearing his Sunday meeting clothes while plowing a field.

As a great philosopher once said, others mileage may vary, but at least the numbers give us something to work with.

Quote :

Michael Schaffner wrote :   Well, yes.  I once saw a cavalryman who had two A tents -- one for himself and his wife, and one for the two kids and extra gear.  Come to think of it, there was probably a third one somewhere for the horse.

Mike,

At the events, where Sandy and the Grand Kids attend; they inhabit my wall tent and fly, while I'm relegated to a dog tent. I set the dog up close by, so I'm available for wood and water details. Lots and lots of water details.    

Fortunately your situation is an authentic one: Baron Modeste Alexievitch Stepanov, military envoy from the Tsar to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has left us copious documentation on the extensive use of canvas during the Neshaminy Campaign.  The fact that no decisive battle occurred may be attributed to the respective commanders' inability to locate their men among all the canvas and camp followers.  

Those intrepid researches who fork that manure a little deeper will find the mounted folks had yet another uniform for use in the stables. I'd like to see an original pair to observe if this garment was similar to the civilian version. Ah, yes, I'm reminded of the dragoons who wore their orange to the very last...

Charles,

On July 1, 1864, there were 116,341 Stable Frocks on hand at the various Federal Depots. Sad to say, I do believe; like the Common Tent, none of these Stable Frocks survived the Indian Wars.

There is a nice picture of a Stable Frock in those QM Photos, that were taken in 1866.  

Bill wins the Kewpie doll.

Does the 4th Texas have any interest in the 1st Texas by any chance? Just happened to think about something in nice, warm, well, probably not dry weather, come to think of it.

Back to the cav-uh-ree and drag-uh-hoons, Jeff Davis' Own by James R. Arnold (2000) is a good read about the pre-war actions, and sheds some light on how the old army was organized (or not) depending on the fun and games with the Comanches.  I realize some of the ration request forms I've handled at NARA correspond with the actions in this book. Kinda nice, if you ask me.