Looks to me like he's got his sack coat tucked into his trousers:



A jacket would stick out under his NCO or is that a Cavalry belt?

Maybe so.  If it is, it also looks like he's added buttons and button holes.  There are 4 that show above the belt.  I don't think it could be a frock coat with tail cut off.  I also don't think it's a mounted services jacket due to insufficient number of buttons.

My vote goes to modified/non-regulation/private purchase blouse tucked into his trousers.  Nice civilian boots, too.  I wish our wetplate artists would use backdrops similar to this.

Interesting photo.

Also, notice the fancy trousers with the flap pockets. And, is that a paper collar with a tie I see?

Our boy is quite the fashion plate!    

The photograph was taken in "Alexandria Virginia," so it says on the back, the photographer escapes me but, there is no date.



The photographer's name is Beckwith.

Dave,

I don't see any sign of a sword hanger on that belt, but it might be hidden behind his hat.

Those trousers intrigue me. I don't remember seeing a pair like them before. Those pockets look much like what you'd find on the back of modern "Dockers". You can actually see the pocket material outlined on the trousers. You can see they are shaped much like modern rear pants pockets. Seems like it would be tough to get anything out of them. Although trying just might improve your day!  

Dave,

Mess No. 1 has come across several accounts of soldiers tucking in their sacks.  We have actually done this a number of times at events.  Of course it helps to wear a waist belt, which I do 99 percent of the time.  

--Last edited by Ken Cornett on 2007-01-24 21:38:40 --

Since we don't know the date could it be an early war photo and the guy is from a militia unit?

Or maybe just wearing something from home?

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

I'd sure like more information on that style trouser. Have any of you ever seen a pair with that type of pocket before?

Gents:

This was a widely held practice during the war. There is a famous picture of Engineer Drivers taken by Gardner (I believe), and a number of them are wearing their blouses tucked in, as is the drummer boy below. The Gardner image is located on the Library of Congress website.



Here is the image which is located on the LOC website.

 

--Last edited by Histcloth on 2007-11-25 10:11:49 --

Since they're called "blouses" instead of "coats," what did "blouse" really mean in the period? Was it something that was often tucked in, like an overshirt?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Sir:

I am not really aware of a universal reason for the method of wearing their blouses that way.

Terminology can be very fleeting, and even in today's computer age, the same thing can mean differnt things to differnt people. It is very rare that there was a singular meaning for anything back then.

Gentlemen, I forgot to check my OED for historic cites of "blouse", but I do remember encountering something interesting while rooting around QM reports in the ORs and other sources on clothing.  

I didn't do a statistical analysis, but it seemed to me that earlier in the war, documents mostly referred to the "uniform coat" and the "fatigue blouse."  Later in the war, the same garments seem more and more to be referred to as "frock coat" and "sack coat" -- something about adding a few million civilians to the army seems to have affected the terminology.  Similarly, I think there was a tendency for the "great coat" to become an "overcoat."

The rule isn't universal, and right up to the end, as I recall, you can see all these terms used in the same document.  I suspect, though, that the sack or blouse was originally considered more like an overshirt because only the first one issued (to recruits) was to be lined, all further ones to be unlined and worn, as they say, "for fatigue purposes."

An enlargement of the shirt worn by the fellow behind the gent with the newspaper would be very nice.

Mr. Schaffner:

I really don't know that I could make such a generalized rule, owing to the tremendous variation and interpretation practiced by contractors. While it theoretically COULD be worn as an overshirt, it doesn't appear to be designed as such by the government. Wearing the shirt in that style seems to be more of a field application of the garment than any universal rule or design.

To me, the federal clothing usually had a civilian counterpart. I cannot recall a comparable garment used in the civilian population that served dual purposes.

Mr. Sekela, I wouldn't make such a rule, either.  I just said I "suspect" it was intended more as a workshirt than what it eventually became because of the schedule of issue for the regular army.  That didn't really apply to the volunteer army because of the cash allowance they received instead and, as the war went on, the demands of actual service.  

I also agree that the sack/blouse wasn't designed to be tucked in.  Someone was just getting creative there.  Sort of like converting a sack/blouse to a "jacket" by cutting off the tails.  Be interesting to see a few people do it; be kinda weird if it caught on.

Got curious on the "blouse" name and it looks like it came from the French (no surprise), and referred in the period to a garment that was the French version of a workman's smock. Several period dictionaries define it as a loose frock coat or in more detail: "A light loose garment, resembling a frock-coat, made of linen or cotton, and worn by men to protect them from dust, or supply the want of a coat."

Dictionary of Americanisms, 1848, includes "BLOUSE. (Fr. blouse.) A loose garment made of brown linen, fastened round the waist with a belt; worn by men and boys in France, and lately introduced partially into this country."

History of British Costume, 1834, traces it back to "a garment called bliaut or blliaus, which appears to have been only another name for the surcoat or super-tunic, as we find it worn also by knights over their armour... In this bliaus we may discover the modern French blouse, a tunic or smock-frock."

So although the French garment has a similar function--something to be worn "for fatigue purposes"--the French garment doesn't seem to bear a resemblance to a sack coat, and in fact an American duster or or overshirt worn untucked with a belt would be closer in appearance. So unfortunately I'm not seeing any etymological reason to tuck it in.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Maybe sometimes a man just doesn't want his garment to get into his work.

Or perhaps the issued trousers were too large in the waist so this was a method to make them fit better; who knows.

Another possibility is that his drawers keep slipping down on him, and tucking shirt and blouse between drawers and trowsers helps keep them up better.

Don't ask me how I know about this problem....

Check this out!!

The blouse worn by this soldier appears to be altered to the length of a uniform/shell jacket.

He was a veteran of the 23rd Michigan Infantry