This picture was from a event in the early 60's before most of us were in the hobby. I don't think that anyone would tolerate anyone showing up like this today.

Well, since nobody "bit", I thought that I would post the larger Library of Congress photograph that it came from...



(the cooler was photoshopped in to eliminate one of the cues)

Imagine the rancor that would be caused by showing up looking like this...

The soldier is too old, too fat, AND is wearing a pinky ring!  

--Last edited by Histcloth on 2008-02-06 10:51:46 --

Yes, but the imitation of wet-plate photography is very good. If you photoshopped out that igloo cooler, it would almost look like an original wet-plate image.

Oh, darn. I was just typing that message, realized I couldn't get to all the great smilies using the quick reply, switched to regular reply, and now see I'm too late.  

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Strangely enough, what tipped me off that it was an original, was the ground. You don't see that kind of trampled mud/dirt at many events, though I thought he would be in a regular stationary campsite, rather than on a newly-made bridge.

Reenactors usually don't stay in one place long enough at events to wear down the grass to that bare-dirt look, except maybe on the roads at large events, but I didn't think he was on a road, since I thought his foot was on a log in camp for fuel or construction of winter quarters.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

You mean to say they didn't have Igloo coolers back then?  Wow.

And now you've got me thinking...am I one of those that are "too old, too fat."  On the plus side I don't weat a pinky ring.  

Nick,

It was funny. I looked at the picture briefly, this morning, before work, and other than the Iglo Cooler, I didn't see much wrong with the guy. Of course, I'm also old and fat. Actually, I thought his boots looked damned good.  

I PM'd you about the Top Tier events thread in the CPH folder. Did you have an opportunity to take a look?

Well, the "old" part is really a reenactor urban legend. I have no idea WHO came up with these rules of history, but the data is out there which refutes this dogma. Note the following poster from the 17th Michigan Infantry...



It is a strange phenomenon in this hobby (but it probably is true to the population in general), those who let us KNOW that they are the most intense students of the period, are often the most narrow minded individuals. By creating rules that filter out parts of history they are bleaching out the aesthetics of the period, so that it becomes flat and dull.  The aesthetic that I see of the Civil War is what they perceived as being "identical" is what we see as a range of variation. For some reason, we keep trying to turn this hobby into our modern concept of identical, and we start to look like reenactors instead of how Civil War soldiers looked.

I think, though, that there's a difference between saying *all* soldiers were thin twenty-somethings, and the *average* soldier was a thin twenty-something.

Some reenactors claim the former, which can easily be disproven, but some reenactors including myself claim the latter, and I think it can be backed up by data--Fox's Regimental Losses, for example.

The problem comes when the thing being judged on its accuracy isn't an individual soldier, it's a company or regiment.

Since there were tubby forty-somethings in the outlying edges of the bell curve, any given age and size is accurate by itself. The problem comes when 50 middle-age overweight reenactors are all vying to portray the half dozen old fat guys on the original roster.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Hank:

You have made my point exactly. There were no weight requirements (as there are in today's military) and from what we see in the above poster, the age went into the mid 40's.

The drive in the late 1980's to create a "generic" impression was the first step towards a homogenized hobby. It is as if we want to take that period in history, and turn it into a template based on current day Paris Island. The Civil War, both on a micro and macro level is about the pouring together of differeces.

The primary concern with the military at the time was the physical ability of the soldier to endure the hardships of the campaign. The study below, quoted by Linda Trent, shows the findings, which was published in the OR's does show a sampling of draftees from Ohio, and gives the following breakdown:

TABLE NO. 5.--Showing the number rejected and exempted for hernia, andphysically examined, from May 10, 1864, to April 30, 1865, 6,528.(*)
Table No. 5 shows the number physically examined, and the relative frequency of the classification, as found in applicants for service, and as cause of exemption of enrolled and drafted men. <ar126_872>
The influence of malaria, causing chronic change of function or structure of the internal organs (section 5), and the youthful exposure to accidents, dislocations, and fractures (section 37) in the rural districts, and which are frequently unattended by medical or surgical skill, leaving the sufferer with an unnecessary permanent deformity and disability, may to some extent account for the large ratios under these two sections.
For causes other than physical and mental disability, the rejections exhibit a still much greater proportion ------. Seventy-seven per 1,000 examined of recruits have been rejected for want of physical development, implying a deficiency of age. And the experience attained in this department tends to confirm that of others made in the field, that the minimum age is too low for recruits, and the maximum at least five years too great for drafted men, to obtain efficient and enduring soldiers. Few boys of eighteen years of age are sufficiently matured to endure fatigue, exposure, and change of living consequent to the soldier, while the age of forty with the laboring man in this climate brings many ills unknown or uncared for below this period. The former is shown in the examinations of those under twenty years of age, and the latter is manifest in the exemptions of drafted men. In the examination of 752 recruits and substitutes under twenty, and natives of Ohio, the ratio rejected per 1,000 examined amounts to 355, while 911 examined of twenty, and not exceeding forty years of age, natives of the same State, shows a ratio rejected of only 183 per 1,000 examined. In the examination of 1,396 drafted men, 138 of the number were forty and under forty-five years of age. The ratio exempted per 1,000 physically examined of those under forty is 284, and those forty and under forty-five amounts to 369, and the greater number of the accepted, or not exempt, bearing evidence of an inferior class. As an established consequence, the greater the ratio rejected of any class, comparatively the more it increases the suspicions of the character and efficiency of those accepted.
TABLE NO. 6.--Showig the number of natives of Ohio of less than twenty years of age, and the number more than twenty years of age, of recruits and substitutes examined from July 4, 1864, to April 30, 1865, and the number of drafted men less than forty, and the number forty and less than forty-five years of age, physically examined, and the ratio rejected and exempted for each class.
A Number physically examined.
B Number rejected and exempted.
C Ratio rejected and exempted per 1,000 examined.

A B C
Ohio recruits and substitutes:
Less than 20 years 752 267 355.0
More than 20 years 911 167 183.3
Total 1,663 434 260.9

Drafted men:
Less than 40 years of age 1,258 358 284.5
More than 40 and less than 45 138 51 369.5
Total 1,396 409 296.5

The criteria at the time was not "looking" the part, but having the physical ability to endure the rigors of campaign. This explains the randomization that one finds during the period. Why are we trying to superimpose our own criteria? Instead of taking the randomization that occured during the period, the effort to "average out" the hobby completely destroys the aesthetic of the Civil War period.  

--Last edited by histcloth on 2008-02-07 03:55:57 --

Now Nick, if you would have photoshopped a metal cooler or one of those nifty Coca Cola box coolers, you would have had us!

I'd love to see a close up of the man sitting with the canteen around his neck, or rather of the canteen itself.  

Heck, maybe that's not a canteen, but some sort of butt pack?

Here ya go Ken...

Quote :

Histcloth wrote : This picture was from a event in the early 60's before most of us were in the hobby.

And my first thought was "Really?! Wonder who was making a pleated coat that nice in the 1960's?"

And my second thought was remembering a weekend well spent several years back, repairing a very similar pleated frock that had come badly unraveled at the very strained waist button.  After robbing from the interior seams and pockets, reweaving, reinforcing, and ekeing out an additional half inch in girth without ruining the lines of the fine coat, I explained to the owner that the problem was not in the quality of the material , nor the cut and manufacture of the coat, but that the man inside had changed shape over time.  

That was in the spring.  Fall muster saw him 40 pounds lighter--much as a soldier in the field might have been after a long summer campaign.  

Cloth strap, cover about the same shade as his trowsers, both of which are lighter than the man to the right's blouse and both of their forage caps.  Seems to be hanging a bit lower than we've been told was the norm.  Not wearing braces, either.

Yeah, I noticed no braces or belt, but look at the small of his back.  Looks like a "fastner" of some sort. Also looks like a domet flannel issue shirt.  I wonder if the canteen will rise when he stands?

Any idea's Nick?

Guys,

Check out that shiny sling keeper. Must be stainless steel.

Quote :

Ken Cornett wrote : Yeah, I noticed no braces or belt, but look at the small of his back.  Looks like a "fastner" of some sort. Also looks like a domet flannel issue shirt.  I wonder if the canteen will rise when he stands?

It's possible, the fellow just has his braces turned down and is sitting on them, though I don't see anything else showing.

Sometimes when you sit down, the braces pull on your shoulders and can be a bit uncomfortable.  He may have turned them down for that reason, if they weren't going anywhere soon.

Quote :

flattop32355 wrote :   It's possible, the fellow just has his braces turned down and is sitting on them, though I don't see anything else showing. Sometimes when you sit down, the braces pull on your shoulders and can be a bit uncomfortable.  He may have turned them down for that reason, if they weren't going anywhere soon.

I think I see the button for the braces (it may just be a spot on the photo) but it does appear that he does not have on braces. There also appears to be gathers in the back of the trousers as well, I wonder if it is some sort of field modification. I'm looking forward to Nick getting back from his conference in a few days to assist with this thread; fascinating stuff.

Also, notice the hairstyle and the way the forage cap rides on his head.  

--Last edited by toptimlrd on 2008-02-10 23:55:15 --