Interesting and confusing!

[Quick Fire]

As I have been trying to get my 1874-76 cavalry impression together, I have came across an interesting but confusing bit of info. In the book,"Field Uniforms of the Indian War Army 1872-1886" under the 1874 Blouse it states "Single-breasted short coat that reaches about halfway between the hip and knee." However in all photos I have seen in this book and in the book " US army in the West 1870-1880 Uniforms Weapons and Equipment" the blouse only comes to just hip length or slightly below, but certainly not midway between hip and knee. Any thoughts or comments?

Quick Fire

[St. George]

For one thing, the coats worn by mounted men were shorter.

In order to tell - you'll have to see the back of the coat, though, and most photos don't show that, but the coat's cut to better allow the mounting of the horse.

The uniforms of that particular time frame were of poor quality, made from what was left over from Civil War stocks of fabric and not pre-shrunk - consequently, after a few washings, if it originally did fit the trooper - it suddenly didn't.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Quick Fire]

St. George, first of all thanks for replying to my post. While I know that you are way more knowledgeable about this subject than I, I haven't seen anything in the books that I've been reading that mentions the blouse issued to mounted men being shorter. I have seen the regs stating that the dress coat for mounted men were made shorter but not the undress coat. And also in the pictures I have seen with the men wearing the undress coat none of the sleeves seemed to be too short which in my experience would shrink more than the overall length of the coat.

Quick Fire

[Advertising]

[Pitspitr]

"For Infantry: Single-breasted, dark blue basque, according to pattern deposited in Quartermasters General’s Office, piped with sky blue; collar same height as for officers’ coat, faced with sky-blue cloth four inches back on each side, cut square to hook up close in front; number of regiment or badge of corps in yellow metal in middle of sky blue facing of collar on each side; skirt of coat on each side of opening behind to be faced with sky-blue cloth, ornamental with four buttons, as per pattern. Two straps of dark blue cloth, piped with the same color of the facings let into the waist-seam on each side the coat and buttoning above the hip to sustain the waist belt; shoulder-straps of cloth the color of the facings let into the shoulder-seam and to button over the shoulder-belts at the collar-seam with one button; ....            
....For Cavalry and Light Artillery: Same as for Infantry, excepting that it is shorter in the skirt, and the facing upon the skirt put on differently, according to pattern in the Quartermaster General’s Office; facing of Cavalry yellow..."

This is excepted from the 1872 Regulations. These are the regulations for the "undress coat" I'm not finding the Regs for the 1874 blouse which is what, I believe, you're looking for. The Blouse is the jacket which is just slightly longer than waist length A better reference would be US Army in the West 1870-1880 by Doug McChristian or Amy Blue and More Army Blue by John P. Langellier

[Trailrider]

Quickfire -
One thing you need to know about the cavalry in the field in the 1870's-'80's is that the officers and troopers alike usually saved their "good" uniforms for garrison activities, using whatever left-over parts and pieces of CW uniforms, most recently issued used stuff, and privately purchased stuff (hats, shirts, etc.) from the sutler's store. Lt. John Burke, BGen Crook's aid-de-camp on the Big Horn & Yellowstone Expedition of 1876, wrote, "We looked more like a band of brigands than a military command."  About the only things that were issued and used in the field were holsters, belts and some other accoutrements. In many instances, prior to issue of the canvas cartridge belts, where metallic cartridges had come out, the company saddlers often modified waist belts by sewing cartridge loops to the basic belt. Although the Dyer pouches were issued, putting twenty-plus .45-70 rounds in one place concentrated weight uncomfortably, whereas the "Fairweather Christian" or prairie belts distributed the weight. The bad feature to these was that when they were wet and/or the copper-cased ammo was left in the loops, corrosive vertigris would form on the rounds. In garrison, Civil War cap pouces were used to hold six rounds of pistol ammo. But the Dyer pouches did have their uses... During a field inspection by ordnance inspectors from the Dept. of the Platte, one "well turned out" sergeant was wearing his Dyer pouch. When asked to open it, the contents proved to be...a sandwich! 

Ride easy, but stay alert!

[St. George]

Thanks, Jerry, 

You saved me the effort of having to dig out the excerpt.

Another thing I'll point out is the fact that the company tailor was kept quite busy during this era - making sure that things actually fit the trooper after washing.

That might go a long way towards explaining the photos that are seen, especially when it's taken into account that the photos of that time were mostly posed and the subject was in his best attire.

Might not, but if those particular books cited are re-read, there's mention of that fact.

Scouts Out!

[Pitspitr]

Below are photo's that might help. The first is a photo of the coat described in the regulations. The second is of the M-1874 blouse. Both are infantry versions, but will help illustrate the regulations.




And yes the *&%^$#! blouse shrunk (hanging in the closet no less!)

[Quick Fire]

Thanks guys, I really appreciate the replies. The reason I asked in the first place was that I purchased a 74 undress blouse and right now the length is between hip and knee and I wanted to know if I should shorten it. I guess I'll leave it alone for now.

Quick Fire

[Pitspitr]

It looks like the one in the bottom picture, only longer and piped in yellow? If that's the case, washing may take care of the length problem. If it doesn't you can get it altered. As has been pointed out earlier, having a taylor alter the issued clothing to personal taste was quite common. In fact, at one point so many soldiers were having their uniforms altered that the army started issuing the cloth for the blouse, shirt, trousers or whatever uncut so that the taylor could cut it to fit the soldier. ( I don't remember the reference for this but I think it can be found in the above McChristian book.)

[Quick Fire]

The reference is in the book mentioned and I didn't know that you could wash those coats, I thought they had to be dry cleaned.

Quick Fire

[Pitspitr]

It depends on the wool. I wash all of mine except one pair of trousers and my dress coats.
Cold water woolite lots of fabric softener and air dry.

[Pitspitr]

Forgot to say that I had one blouse that was such poor wool that it shrunk from my sweat while I was wearing it.

Oh, and the part about the blouse in the picture shrinking WAS tongue in cheek

[pony express]

While on the subject of wool shrinking, have you washed one of the River Junction shirts? If so, how'd it do(Mine's about to need it!)

[St. George]

Use Woolite - wash by hand, in cold water, rinse twice in cold water - let drip dry and pull into shape.

If you have to use the washer, only use the 'hand washables' cycle and do not dry - pull it out wet and pull into shape to let drip dry.

Scouts Out!

[Pitspitr]

...let drip dry and pull into shape.

pull it out wet and pull into shape to let drip dry.

Good point. Yes, I should have said drip dry instead of air dry because some dryers have an "air dry" setting and that isn't what I meant. For trousers, they used to make frames called pants stretchers and they are a good way of pulling them into shape as they dry...if you can find a set.

Pony
I've never seen, let alone handled, an original M-1881 blue army shirt so I can't speak to how well River Junction copied it, but the wool is good quality and it is well made and comfortable. I've had mine 3 (or 4?) years and washed it using the above method each year after the summer muster. It may have shrunk a little, but not much

[Bruce W Sims]

Not to be nit-picky (...and no pun intended....) ......but if a person wanted to remain faithful to cleaning methods of the times,
would the method of cleaning be brown bar soap and cold water? If so, was such a method sufficient
to get rid of "critters" and their eggs? If not, was boiling the wool garments an option? I've been reading Utley's "Frontier Regulars" (Macmillan Publ, 1973)  and he makes several references to campaigns on the Northern Plains resulting in uniforms
being in tatters. I'm left to wonder if this was a result of poor quality, faulty maintenance methods.....or maybe both.Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Pitspitr]

I've been reading Utley's "Frontier Regulars" (Macmillan Publ, 1973)  and he makes several references to campaigns on the Northern Plains resulting in uniforms
being in tatters. I'm left to wonder if this was a result of poor quality, faulty maintenance methods.....or maybe both

I would add "hard use" to that list.

[pony express]

Regular soap won't get rid of critters, and boiling a wool shirt would only make it into a child's size one.... I think they pretty much just lived with them.

[St. George]

The quality of clothing issued during the Civil War and Indian Wars was indeed shoddy - and that's where we got that term, so look it up.

Contracts were let with no sizes specified, so the manufacturers would measure to get the largest number of garments from each bolt of cloth - resulting in the survival of so many of those small shell jackets one used to see that were in such good condition.

They were in that condition simply because no one could wear them, so they stayed baled up.

Additionally, manufacturers didn't pre-shrink any of their fabrics, so the shrinkage happened after the delivery of goods and initial issue - meaning that the poorly-paid soldier footed the bill.

The hats were laughable - often collapsing during the first rain - never to return to their original shape.

Vermin was always a problem on Campaign - men often cut their hair close in order to better find body lice, and used lye-based  or pine tar soaps in the effort to keep clean, but back then, they weren't as germophobic as those of today, and they lived through the experience.

As to ridding clothing of vermin - anthills were quite often the solution, as was the 'chasing' of lice with candles by running the flame along the seams, or by the use of a red-hot wire - and in answer to the next observation - yes, it often burned holes in the clothing.

Campaigning was tough - tough on men - tough on horses - tough on equipment.

Everyone and everything took a beating, and often returned to Post in tatters - their clothing barely covering them, and their boots worn out.

It's why the actual campaign clothing used by the Indian Wars soldiers and troopers is so difficult to find - most of it ended up on the burn piles as too worn to even use to patch other things, and that says something more about uniform quality when one realizes that they never wasted anything if they could possibly help it, because they were never sure when (or if) they'd be resupplied, so they 'made do'.

Scouts Out!

[Grenadier]

I once read that the Native Americans would place their clothing on ant hills to did themselves of life. Apparently the ants were more efficient at removing the vermin.  During WW1 German soldiers would heat spoons over a flame and then run it along the seams of their clothing to kill any hidden life and their offspring. 

BTW the term shoddy comes from the material that falls to the floor during the weaving/spinning process. Think of how lint gathers in your dryer. This material is typically a waste product, due to it being comprised of short fibers and occasionally course. Often it was recycled and added to higher quality fibers and spun into yarns for fabric. This would result in more harm but of a lesser quality, this leading to poor or inferior fabric. Interesting that the Germans were doing the same thing in both world wars, due to a lack of resources. In WWII rayon was developed by processing cellulose from hardwood. The German shredded captured Soviet wool uniforms to produce "shoddy" to extend their ever shrinking sources of fabric for uniforms.