Help with Uniform Question

[huskerblitz]

Curious about the uniform for the man on left. He's been ID'd by several sites, but this particular soldier reached the rank no higher than a corporal (later reduced in rank due to CM). Yet, his uniform looks to be that of an officer. I'm not a uniform guy so misidentification or what gives with his uniform?

Thanks!

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Based on the obscure kepi badge and frock coat shoulder straps visible, I'm guessing it's the uniform of a 1st Lieutenant in the Union Army Infantry. (Am no expert on this subject though).

 

[captaindrew]

He is wearing a field officer's frock

 

[Scott1967]

Both uniforms look smart and neatly pressed at a guess I would say its a prop maybe these men had just joined and didn't have a uniform yet so they used what was at hand in the studio or borrowed from Union officers already there.

 

[huskerblitz]

Both uniforms look smart and neatly pressed at a guess I would say its a prop maybe these men had just joined and didn't have a uniform yet so they used what was at hand in the studio or borrowed from Union officers already there.

How common were uniform props used? Any idea if that was somewhat common?

 

[major bill]

Man on left 9 button officer frock coat and dark blue officer trousers. Man on left private purchase 9 button officer jacket and light blue trousers.

Both uniforms look smart and neatly pressed at a guess I would say its a prop maybe these men had just joined and didn't have a uniform yet so they used what was at hand in the studio or borrowed from Union officers already there.

Privates wearing officer uniforms would have been very uncommon. For one thing it is a military crime. For another thing, why would privates even do this?

 

[huskerblitz]

Man on left 9 button officer frock coat and dark blue officer trousers. Man on left private purchase 9 button officer jacket and light blue trousers.



Privates wearing officer uniforms would have been very uncommon. For one thing it is a military crime. For another thing, why would privates even do this?

No idea, that's why I decided to post and inquire about it. The photo has been posted around with the same men being listed as those being in the photo. Beyond that, there is not a lot of information to go on.

 

[Old Soldier]

Privates wearing officer uniforms would have been very uncommon. For one thing it is a military crime. For another thing, why would privates even do this?

Because it made them look good? These photos would not necessarily have been taken while under orders, but immediately afterwards. Many of the pistols and even swords held by these soldiers, especially immediately after being recruited, were props from the photographer/studio and supplied for the same reason.

It could also be that the ID was wrong. Rankers with a CM history would rarely have been commissioned.

 

[7thWisconsin]

He is wearing a field officer's frock

That´s a junior officer frock - field officer´s has a double row of buttons. They´re both dressed reasonably as junior officers in a Federal unit. I think that´s a bugle on the front of the kepi, so I´m gonna guess they´re infantry officers. It´s been a long time; I submit that he´s been misidentified over the years. It only takes once, then dozens of other sources just copy and paste. That uniform is properly fitted and worn correctly. I have no reason to suspect it´s not his.

 

[Jim in Wisconsin]

the guy on the right sure has big hands

 

[Scott1967]

How common were uniform props used? Any idea if that was somewhat common?

Common but less common as the war progressed in fact many photo studios would set up shop near recruiting stations like a tattoo artist does near a major military camp.

That´s a junior officer frock - field officer´s has a double row of buttons. They´re both dressed reasonably as junior officers in a Federal unit. I think that´s a bugle on the front of the kepi, so I´m gonna guess they´re infantry officers. It´s been a long time; I submit that he´s been misidentified over the years. It only takes once, then dozens of other sources just copy and paste. That uniform is properly fitted and worn correctly. I have no reason to suspect it´s not his.

The op already mentioned the man had been identified and never rose above the rank of corporal unless I'm mistaken of course.

 

[steamboater]

Curious about the uniform for the man on left. He's been ID'd by several sites, but this particular soldier reached the rank no higher than a corporal (later reduced in rank due to CM). Yet, his uniform looks to be that of an officer. I'm not a uniform guy so misidentification or what gives with his uniform?

Thanks!

View attachment 449925

OK, the group seems to have run out of options on opinions. So, let's go for the facts via a different direction. What are the names these guys have been given, what units were they in, and what publications have carried this possible misinformation?

 

[huskerblitz]

OK, the group seems to have run out of options on opinions. So, let's go for the facts via a different direction. What are the names these guys have been given, what units were they in, and what publications have carried this possible misinformation?

The man on the left is G W Reeder of the 22nd Ky and the man on the right is identified as James Garvin of a different regiment but both families were close. The picture below is a later photo of the man on the left (my main interest). I do wonder if the man on the right is Johnson Garvin, who was a nephew to James and closer in age to Reeder. Johnson and Reeder both served in the same regiment at the same time. Both were in their mid-20s while James Garvin was suppose to be 45 when he enlisted about 1863. This picture might appear in the Carter County, Kentucky historical book, I'm not sure but family members are the ones who have identified both men in the photo. This isn't my family, but just wanting to get a better understanding.

 

[John Hartwell]

Both of the men in the photograph are clearly officers. If one or both men in question was never commissioned, one or both is/are misidentified -- or risking court martial.

 

[Old Soldier]

The man on the left is G W Reeder of the 22nd Ky and the man on the right is identified as James Garvin of a different regiment but both families were close. The picture below is a later photo of the man on the left (my main interest). I do wonder if the man on the right is Johnson Garvin, who was a nephew to James and closer in age to Reeder. Johnson and Reeder both served in the same regiment at the same time. Both were in their mid-20s while James Garvin was suppose to be 45 when he enlisted about 1863. This picture might appear in the Carter County, Kentucky historical book, I'm not sure but family members are the ones who have identified both men in the photo. This isn't my family, but just wanting to get a better understanding.

That's more like it. Now we need to identify them as officers.

 

[RedRover]

Here is an image flip to correct the reversed image of the two fellows.

And some close-ups.

Looked up G.W. Reeder's record with Co. D, 22nd Kentucky volunteers US. He was a corporal, but was absent without leave from January, 1863 to January, 1864. He was found not guilty of desertion, but forfeited his pay, reduced to private, and returned to the ranks.

James Garvin joined Company E, 40th KY Infantry (mounted...might explain the jacket) as a private in Aug., 1863 and was promoted to 2nd Lieutenant. He is shown as having died at Boone Furnace, KY in April, 1864, age 45 years. His company had been detached to Carter County in Feb., '64 to arrest deserters, etc.

The officers of this company included:

Capt. H.B. Litteral was born in Johnson Co., KY in 1842, and later lived in the Big Sandy Valley, WV, where he died in 1929.
1st Lt. G.W. Littlejohn, b. 1833, Greenup Co., KY, promoted to captain and regimental quartermaster. Died Carter Co., 1918.
1st Lt. John Foster.
After 2nd Lt. Garvin's death Sgt. John Milton Tyree, a hotel keeper at Grayson and Olive Hill, served Union Army Civil War was promoted 2nd Lieutenant in his place, mustered out at Catlettsbury, Ky. 12-30-1864.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

I'm not sure but family members are the ones who have identified both men in the photo.

Just a word of caution. Researching our family tree we found several instances where photos of ancestors had been mis-identified by family members. It happens. No one is intending to deceive, just an honest mistake. Uncle Will was thought to be one of the great-grandfathers but it was the mustaches that were the same, not the men.

 

[Scott1967]

Just a word of caution. Researching our family tree we found several instances where photos of ancestors had been mis-identified by family members. It happens. No one is intending to deceive, just an honest mistake. Uncle Will was thought to be one of the great-grandfathers but it was the mustaches that were the same, not the men.

Your not a man unless you have a moustache that's a fact although my wife has a better one than me .

 

[huskerblitz]

Just a word of caution. Researching our family tree we found several instances where photos of ancestors had been mis-identified by family members. It happens. No one is intending to deceive, just an honest mistake. Uncle Will was thought to be one of the great-grandfathers but it was the mustaches that were the same, not the men.

Yeah, well aware of stuff like that. This came back up on a Facebook post and brought to mind the contradiction in his uniform vs his service record.

 

[Old Soldier]

Your not a man unless you have a moustache that's a fact although my wife has a better one than me .

Yours days are numbered - if she reads this!