Native ( Indian) portrayals?

[Kurtlg]

Sounds interesting. I am a member of Son of Union Veterans of the Civil War, Wa-Bu-No Camp No. 250 which is named for a member of Company K (only SUVCW camp named for a First American). We are thinking about looking for a project. Burt, Michigan is perhaps an hour drive from our meeting place.

The name of the cemetery is Chippewa Indian Cemetery .

 

[major bill]

That would be a great project. Please keep us informed.

The issue is the camp has limited membership and the members are mostly long in the tooth. I think I will suggest we start small and do what might be called a symbolic cleaning of the cemetery, picking one or two graves to clean.

 

[Dullknife]

I think maybe perhaps your idea of how they looked during the war may have been a little off by the sounds of it. No offense.

If I were to recommend how to go about it, this would be my approach:
Clothing
1. Standard wool or jean Civilian trousers
2. Vest
3. Regular brogans. Moccasins were no longer a thing amongst tribes in modern Oklahoma.
4. A colorful civilian frock coat. As seen by the pictures, and there was a name for that then fashion amongst the Cherokee I've forgotten, but South Union Mills just came out with a banyan that I'd say could fit the bill. That Cherokee coat would be a custom item however.
5. Headwear, a regular citizen hat of any kind, or Cherokee turban
6. Optional, a white jean CS jacket would not be out of place, OR even a Federal sack coat.
7. STAY AWAY FROM a Cherokee "ribbon shirt"!!! These are popular for people portraying Cherokee, and even other tribes, BUT they didn't become a thing until AFTER 1900!!! People love them for re-enactments and LH's but have no place historically in anything pre-1910.

Weapons and accoutrements:
Rifles
1. Southern Poor Boy rifle
Going by accounts I've read they were seen, in percussion or flint, but flint was least common and are not typically allowed at re-enactments, but good for LH's.

2. P1853 "Enfield" rifle-muskets
Pretty common capture along with other infantry weapons

3. M1861 Springfield
See number 2

4. Austrian "Kammerbuche" M1849
I most likely missed spelled that, but they were issued to the Federal "Indian Home Guard" regiments at a few points early in the war, and natives would desert and join the other side ALL the time. They were not the most loyal or dependable soldiers many of us would like to believe…

5. Double-barrel Shotgun
Hands down those muzzleloaders were probably the most common gun period in they're ranks.

Common reproduction "Hawken gun" are historically inaccurate for any portrayal CW wise.

Handguns:
Handguns were from all I've seen very rare in CS Indian ranks, until after Waitie captured the J.R Williams in Oklahoma's only naval battle, then there were Colt M1860 "Army" revolvers all around as there was a large shipment! Before that I've only seen mentions of pocket revolvers and of a Colt Dragoon or two.

Accoutrements:
Standard civilian weapon gear, and of some captured Federal gear. Infantry gear on the captured would probably be more common.

I think by the sounds of it...you dont know as much as you think. No offense. Have you seen my posts? Hate to tell you but people did wear feathers, used war paint, and wore moccasins. These are all from period accounts. Maybe you should do more research instead of making comments based in ignorance.

 

[johan_steele]

There would be no way for them to know they had no bloodline. Reenacting doesn't require DNA testing. Most people I've known with some native ancestry are like me, don't identify primarily native, nor are reservation.

I suppose it would be as disrespectful for someone not southern to portray a Confederate, or not a northerner to portray a Union soldier........in reality though one does not even have to have any linage at all to ACW to reenact, just a interest in history.

Certainly if wanting a unbiased interpretation, one doesn't want to give historical interpetation or narrative to specialized minority views.

I just visited a reservation.......if want to hear some "lost cause" you won't find a better place..............

Some people are fine with white people wearing blackface. Others not so much.

 

[Rusk County Avengers]

I think by the sounds of it...you dont know as much as you think. No offense. Have you seen my posts? Hate to tell you but people did wear feathers, used war paint, and wore moccasins. These are all from period accounts. Maybe you should do more research instead of making comments based in ignorance.

I was attempting to be helpful in the most civil way I could when seeing your posts. Though I can often be overly blunt. (And yes I get lectured everyday about that!)

I would suggest a good reading of "A Creek Warrior for the Confederacy" as a great place to illustrate your relying on common old stereotypes regarding CW era Indians. It was written by a Captain in one of those regiments named George Washington Grayson. He didn't even write it for publication but for his descendants, who published it later much to what I imagined would've been a headache to him by his writings.

His first hand accounts are hands down the most valuable resource for what you wish to undertake, (if you wish to do it right and not how you want to think how they were) and as I recall offhand, there's even mention of how some of the men attempted to make moccasins, but had laughable results because it was literally a lost skill to them. He makes many, many mentions of how he and others would try to remember skills and things old timers taught them when they were little, but always to laughable results because they were not roaming Natives at all any more. Most of them tended to be literate, and WAY more educated than whites due to the tribes in the nations having publicly funded schools for all children, something whites didn't even have at that time, and the Nations sending all they're best students to colleges in Arkansas on the Nation's dime whether they liked or not. They were more like modern Americans than anyone else in the CW!

No, they were NOT savages in tipis, they had frame houses, hewn log cabins, towns with stores, and so much else. Sure they may have at times imitated stuff like war paint, but such actions were colored by then-modern stereotypes than anything historical, much like the white propaganda North and South, (though primarily North…) saying they were savages.

Heck after the Battle of Cane Hill in Arkansas, Federal officers found the college there had had a lot of the college books and "an electrical gadget" looted by soldiers of the 3rd Indian Home Guard! And they found the men reading them to take home! White Northern or Southern troops would've looted other items, but the Indians books to read…
("Fields of Blood: The Prairie Grove Campaign" by William Shea is another excellent resource I'd recommend for your studies. I am a bit biased as to me and my opinions it's the most engaging and enjoyable read of any CW book.)

I earnestly wish you luck in your endeavors, I really do. But if you wish to cling to racist old stereotypes, please don't call yourself historically correct. I've no wish to stand in the way of anyone's fun, but if real history matters to you, not Hollywierd history, please research yourself. A good researcher and reenactor always twists opinions to suit facts, instead of facts to suit opinions.

 

[archieclement]

Some people are fine with white people wearing blackface. Others not so much.

If that's what one finds reenacting.

It's certainly depicting other societies, ones that no longer exist, regardless of race. I've noted in the past reenacting standards are rather loose. But certainly a white wishing to depict soldiers who looked white and/or were white is hardly "blackface".

Although not sure where white came from other then Joshism. Didn't see where dullknife referred to his racial heritage, nor did I ask as it's not required to either reenact or post here.

 

[Dullknife]

I was attempting to be helpful in the most civil way I could when seeing your posts. Though I can often be overly blunt. (And yes I get lectured everyday about that!)

I would suggest a good reading of "A Creek Warrior for the Confederacy" as a great place to illustrate your relying on common old stereotypes regarding CW era Indians. It was written by a Captain in one of those regiments named George Washington Grayson. He didn't even write it for publication but for his descendants, who published it later much to what I imagined would've been a headache to him by his writings.

His first hand accounts are hands down the most valuable resource for what you wish to undertake, (if you wish to do it right and not how you want to think how they were) and as I recall offhand, there's even mention of how some of the men attempted to make moccasins, but had laughable results because it was literally a lost skill to them. He makes many, many mentions of how he and others would try to remember skills and things old timers taught them when they were little, but always to laughable results because they were not roaming Natives at all any more. Most of them tended to be literate, and WAY more educated than whites due to the tribes in the nations having publicly funded schools for all children, something whites didn't even have at that time, and the Nations sending all they're best students to colleges in Arkansas on the Nation's dime whether they liked or not. They were more like modern Americans than anyone else in the CW!

No, they were NOT savages in tipis, they had frame houses, hewn log cabins, towns with stores, and so much else. Sure they may have at times imitated stuff like war paint, but such actions were colored by then-modern stereotypes than anything historical, much like the white propaganda North and South, (though primarily North…) saying they were savages.

Heck after the Battle of Cane Hill in Arkansas, Federal officers found the college there had had a lot of the college books and "an electrical gadget" looted by soldiers of the 3rd Indian Home Guard! And they found the men reading them to take home! White Northern or Southern troops would've looted other items, but the Indians books to read…
("Fields of Blood: The Prairie Grove Campaign" by William Shea is another excellent resource I'd recommend for your studies. I am a bit biased as to me and my opinions it's the most engaging and enjoyable read of any CW book.)

I earnestly wish you luck in your endeavors, I really do. But if you wish to cling to racist old stereotypes, please don't call yourself historically correct. I've no wish to stand in the way of anyone's fun, but if real history matters to you, not Hollywierd history, please research yourself. A good researcher and reenactor always twists opinions to suit facts, instead of facts to suit opinions.

Have you read anything written by Wiley Briton? Surely such a well researched person like yourself has?

You may find some interesting bits of info in his writings.

You have no idea who I am yet feel justified in making baseless assumptions about where I am coming from.

Stop virtue signaling and keep your ignorant comments to yourself.

 

[Dullknife]

Wiley Britton....page 33....account of Union Indians going off to battle...putting on war paint....

On page 228 an account of a nasty ambush done by allied Osages....killing and mutilating a bunch Confederates in vengeance....( yeah the Osages werent Delaware or the Cherokee but this tells you they were practicing traditional behavior...I cant verify this yet but I have read in a secondary source thatbthe Osages wore leggings, breech clouts, moccasins, and had shaved heads....that would be something to show at a Civil War living history event....of course with reasonable documentation behind the whole thing)

The Civil War on the Border ...

books.google.com

 

[Dullknife]

The Civil War in Indian Territory, 1861-1865 https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8656&context=etd

 

[Dullknife]

RECOLLECTIONS OF THE GREAT WAR

Written by AW Sparks....

In Chapter 5..we learn about Cooper' Indians..... "The Indian warriors, as I noticed were
well supplied with rations, and rode small ponies and were dressed in a garb ranging from a common gent's suit to a breech clout and blanket, most of the full bloods wore only the latter"

"their faces were painted in such a manner that many of them were frightful to even look upon, there seemed to be no particular design in the manner of their painting, but each one seemed to have been painted according to
according to the fancy of the artist"




"and some were painted black down to the eyes, then the balance of the
face red, and many hideous looking faces told of desperate purposes,
but if any of them bespoke any rank or had special meaning I failed to
learn them. Some had head coverings that were the skins from the
heads of buffalo, bear, panthers, cougars, calves, etc., and quite a
number wore the horns taken off with the hide of buffalo, and others
wore no head covering, only a single feather like it might be plucked
from the tail of a turkey, eagle, buzzard, or anything else that the
wearer might fancy. I noticed one old warrior on foot who carried a
long full stock rifle, he wore leggings and mockasins in addition to
his breech clout and a feather about four feet long that had been
taken from the tail of a peafowl was his complete wardrobe. He only
spoke one word in English and that was, No! We called him "Old Pap"
and he answered to the name with his positive No! to anything that was
spoken to him. There were quite a number of squaws that were among
the warriors in camps but how they traveled and when, I never learned
the Indians. No matter how full or scant his apparel was sure to have
the badge of red and blue on his arm. Their arms were as varied as
their apparel and were old rifle, guns and bows and arrows mostly, and
in this motleyed assembly we marched upon the enemy, a force I
suppose, all toll, would number from 2500 to 2800 men."

But all this is racist and made up right???? Guess the guy just felt like lying for some reason?

 

[Dullknife]

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/lookin

http://

 

[archieclement]

I do find it a bit disrespectful for non Native Americans to dress up as Native Americans. The Native American groups in my state look down on this.

These type observations make me realize how much others apparently cling to racism and race.

If you go to a reenactment, and saw a Hispanic, Native American, Asian, African American, or even a woman portraying a soldier in what was historically a predominantly white male unit are you offended?

Frankly I'm not, according to your view I should be? Seems rather ridiculous to me, I hold no such narrow world view.

Not sure how those holding such views even categorize race, as you do realize most races have assimilated and are actually a mixture of races today?.....was even true 150 years ago, why they referred to mixed bloods and half breeds with Natives and mulatto with African American...........and subsequent generations mixed as well.

Anecdotal evidence, but while at Pine Ridge I chatted with a Lakota lady about reservation and life there, I did ask her how many on reservation were pure blood(or likely close) and she said probally less then 10%.

 

[johan_steele]

But did you ask her what she thought of white people in general, of "white Indians" or of white people taking part in a Powwow as a grass dancer? That would be pertinent to the conversation.

My own view with the Lakota is from having lived on the Reservation, Cheyenne River, to be precise. Half the kids in my graduating class had been extras for Dances with Wolves along with at least two of the teachers. At the time even the kids were less than appreciative of the plethora of constant insults heaped upon Indians from Hollyweird to politics. Maybe things have changed or maybe the Cherokee are less touchy.

I can speak to the idea of reenacting Sibley's campaign as being not only bad but if anywhere near an actual Reservation quite possibly unhealthy.

It was really at the beginning of a resurgence of pride in the Lakota and I can even point to a couple three elders who seemed to have been successfully pushing it. The language was coming back from extinction, it was the start of it being encouraged being taught in the schools. I still have people of the Lakota as friends and acquaintances.

I can speak to seeing and listening to their offense to witnessing things. First and foremost was that of white people wearing an eagle feather… ironically that's illegal without the right paperwork. But hey since when have white people followed the law when it wasn't convenient? Was their comment and the elder I paraphrased earlier and again irrelevant? Some clearly believe so.

White people playing the indian is no different than putting on blackface. Only slightly less ignorant/offensive than watching affluent white men try to equate the Confederacy to the experience of the Native American.

Personally, I think a member of the tribe taking the opportunity to use it as a teaching experience would be incredible. That said my experience with re-enacting standards would more likely have some yahoo put together what he thought would look right without bothering to do the research. Most probably wouldn't know the difference, some wouldn't care and those who would know would likely just roll their eyes at a white man looking stupid and conning people.

I don't pretend to know as much about the Cherokee or Creek etc as the Cheyenne, Lakota, Dakota etc. But I do know there are certain things a white indian can do out of ignorance that might get him a reading to from the book. And if lucky it would be no worse than a set of slashed tires and at worst… would be every bit as dangerous as a black man walking down the wrong street near a Klan convention… sorry, I mean "social gathering."

 

[major bill]

These type observations make me realize how much others apparently cling to racism and race.

If you go to a reenactment, and saw a Hispanic, Native American, Asian, African American, or even a woman portraying a soldier in what was historically a predominantly white male unit are you offended?

Frankly I'm not, according to your view I should be? Seems rather ridiculous to me, I hold no such narrow world view.

Not sure how those holding such views even categorize race, as you do realize most races have assimilated and are actually a mixture of races today?.....was even true 150 years ago, why they referred to mixed bloods and half breeds with Natives and mulatto with African American...........and subsequent generations mixed as well.

Anecdotal evidence, but while at Pine Ridge I chatted with a Lakota lady about reservation and life there, I did ask her how many on reservation were pure blood(or likely close) and she said probally less then 10%.

Part of the reason I believe that First People might be offended is from my working at the Michigan History Museum. The First People groups has asked us not to allow docents who are non First People to dress up as First People, or wear items associated with the First People. We have docents that wear various Museum approved costumes. The French fur trade costumes are on hold because the possibility that the First People items added to the French fur trader costumes were questionable.

The Museum has been trying to update our pre European gallery for almost three years with the sticking point being 12 First People groups must approve every item and the associated signage. As stated by others, there is not one view amoung First Americans and a unanimous agreement from 12 groups is a challenge. Some artifacts have a religous connection to some of the 12 First People groups, so they are concerned about the artifacts being displayed at all, while other groups believe the artifacts can be put on display as long as the artifacts are displayed with proper respect.

 

[archieclement]

My questions, I visited with her about half an hour, were more about tribal governance and politics then race.

The questions I did ask were issues raised in this thread, such as pure bloods. She did say they still have Pow Pows, that they were open to the public (non tribals) to attend and participate. She did not express a dim view of that at.

I also asked about tribal animosity from the thread, she was was somewhat non committed to that issue.

She did start to preach on the 1868 Laramie treaty, I was polite, but it gets rather old......as Congress is not going to give the Black Hills back......or Georgia to the Cherokee, they would be better served accepting it and moving on.

It's same when I'm in Louisiana I find the remaints of French law/government more interesting then if they identify creole, Cajun, Indian, white, or black.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

I've been following this thread with great interest. Some of you know and some don't that I have tribal registration (state recognition) in Vermont, though I live in NH. I've been biting my tongue any number of times reading this whole thing.

@johan_steele has put all my thoughts into wonderful words and @captaindrew suggestion about the Seminole reenactment thing in Florida is very sound.

I know Captain Drew and I would follow his advice and try to join up with this Seminole reenactment group. Even if it is many states away from where you live, a lot of reenactors travel for that hobby. I would send a PM to Captain Drew for more advice on how to get started into that, if you are serious. I really like your idea but I think for you to be successful in it, you need a GOOD mentor in it going forward, not just striking out on your own.

I, personally, would stay away from anything, and I mean ANYTHING remotely involving Cherokee. There are A LOT of issues that have been going on with the different bands and that is all I'm going to say about the matter. If you decide to venture in on that one, well, on your own head be it.

War paint and such - one thing to remember that depending on the different bands/clans/ of any group, but not usually at so late a date as the Civil War, they would hire out other bands/clans to do their dirty work and some of them would use war paint as disguises. So that's why I strongly encourage getting in touch with this Seminole group in Florida. Here in New England, the Nipmucks had a reputation for being up for hire to do hits on other tribes. But we are talking late 1600s and early to mid 1700s on that kind of thing.

By the time of the Civil War, most tribes in the SE of the United States, had either been pushed out West or into impenetrable swamps, or into enclaves like the Lumbees who were wearing western clothes. Certainly the Indians that rode with Forrest wore regular Confederate clothing, in the sense of did anyone have pants and shirts and boots. They weren't a stand out of "Indian Clothes" and feathers in their hair. If anyone remembers Diane Jones from CWT, her GRANDFATHER rode with Nathan Bedford Forrest, lived to be 100, and never talked about it. Most frustrating, and he was a full-blooded Indian but he didn't "act Indian or dressed Indian" while he was doing his CW thing. He moved out to California when the big show was all over.

The eagle feather thing, just don't do it.

And as @johan_steele talked about slashed tires - I've heard of much worse from our tribal historian who is a youngish man and has been out in those reservations. So please be careful with what you do which again is why you need to hook up with a really good mentor so you get a good start and don't get off on the wrong foot and get dug into a hole that you can't get out of.

Heck, I was at Old Fort No. 4 in Charlestown, NH doing a reenactment as a Colonial. I used to work as a weaver and spinner at Strawbery Banke in Portsmouth, NH. Old Fort No. 4 is a rebuild of where the real Old Fort No. 4 was to protect settlers in the "western frontier" of NH in the 1700s. There was the man who was a Seneca who had developed a reputation for being a real a@@ and while I was in my Colonial outfit and holding a flintlock for one of our friends, he just went off on me! (He must have recognized me). I didn't even know his name but he just went off on me on being tribal and what little blankety-blanks our whole tribe was/were back in history, etc, and SUDDENLY I had this thought - and the thought was "flintlocks were made for Indians like you……"

I found out later that this man, who is Seneca thinks he's big time stuff at reenactments and wants other tribes out. Even if I'm a colonist for the day

I don't want that to happen to you when you are on your own and you don't have "your people" around to help guide you through that. Because it only takes one or two people like that to spoil reenacting for you forever. I just laughed it off because after you work at a museum and help, on an average 275 people a day, spin or weave, you deal with everyone! But if you haven't dealt with a "special case" like that before, it could really put you off.

 

[archieclement]

I've been following this thread with great interest. Some of you know and some don't that I have tribal registration (state recognition) in Vermont, though I live in NH. I've been biting my tongue any number of times reading this whole thing.

@johan_steele has put all my thoughts into wonderful words and @captaindrew suggestion about the Seminole reenactment thing in Florida is very sound.

I know Captain Drew and I would follow his advice and try to join up with this Seminole reenactment group. Even if it is many states away from where you live, a lot of reenactors travel for that hobby. I would send a PM to Captain Drew for more advice on how to get started into that, if you are serious. I really like your idea but I think for you to be successful in it, you need a GOOD mentor in it going forward, not just striking out on your own.

I, personally, would stay away from anything, and I mean ANYTHING remotely involving Cherokee. There are A LOT of issues that have been going on with the different bands and that is all I'm going to say about the matter. If you decide to venture in on that one, well, on your own head be it.

War paint and such - one thing to remember that depending on the different bands/clans/ of any group, but not usually at so late a date as the Civil War, they would hire out other bands/clans to do their dirty work and some of them would use war paint as disguises. So that's why I strongly encourage getting in touch with this Seminole group in Florida. Here in New England, the Nipmucks had a reputation for being up for hire to do hits on other tribes. But we are talking late 1600s and early to mid 1700s on that kind of thing.

By the time of the Civil War, most tribes in the SE of the United States, had either been pushed out West or into impenetrable swamps, or into enclaves like the Lumbees who were wearing western clothes. Certainly the Indians that rode with Forrest wore regular Confederate clothing, in the sense of did anyone have pants and shirts and boots. They weren't a stand out of "Indian Clothes" and feathers in their hair. If anyone remembers Diane Jones from CWT, her GRANDFATHER rode with Nathan Bedford Forrest, lived to be 100, and never talked about it. Most frustrating, and he was a full-blooded Indian but he didn't "act Indian or dressed Indian" while he was doing his CW thing. He moved out to California when the big show was all over.

The eagle feather thing, just don't do it.

And as @johan_steele talked about slashed tires - I've heard of much worse from our tribal historian who is a youngish man and has been out in those reservations. So please be careful with what you do which again is why you need to hook up with a really good mentor so you get a good start and don't get off on the wrong foot and get dug into a hole that you can't get out of.

Heck, I was at Old Fort No. 4 in Charlestown, NH doing a reenactment as a Colonial. I used to work as a weaver and spinner at Strawbery Banke in Portsmouth, NH. Old Fort No. 4 is a rebuild of where the real Old Fort No. 4 was to protect settlers in the "western frontier" of NH in the 1700s. There was the man who was a Seneca who had developed a reputation for being a real a@@ and while I was in my Colonial outfit and holding a flintlock for one of our friends, he just went off on me! (He must have recognized me). I didn't even know his name but he just went off on me on being tribal and what little blankety-blanks our whole tribe was/were back in history, etc, and SUDDENLY I had this thought - and the thought was "flintlocks were made for Indians like you……"

I found out later that this man, who is Seneca thinks he's big time stuff at reenactments and wants other tribes out. Even if I'm a colonist for the day

I don't want that to happen to you when you are on your own and you don't have "your people" around to help guide you through that. Because it only takes one or two people like that to spoil reenacting for you forever. I just laughed it off because after you work at a museum and help, on an average 275 people a day, spin or weave, you deal with everyone! But if you haven't dealt with a "special case" like that before, it could really put you off.

I agree I often bite my tongue as well, but this thread has seemed alot of presumptions.

I have no idea if the original poster is white, Native, or some of both, haven't seen where he has said. Yet some appeared to jump to white. Though in my experience talking to reenactors and people with specific ACW interests, they often have personal connections to the subject steering that interest.

There is no way to judge his impression as offensive or inaccurate as one hasn't been presented.

Nor should a white reenacting in units that had whites, and multi racials appearing white equate to "blackface". Just a white officer in USCT would not be "blackface". It would actually be depicting whites in the unit as they historically existed.........

Just as the objection to any mention of feathers is odd, the Troiana image of one or two feathers added to a predominantly normal uniform should not be offensive. Thought he is generally noted as researching the images he does. Frankly non natives would adorn hats as well occasionally. Again seems some presumption of jumping to some full headdress.

If this is how most prospects considering reenacting are treated for expressing interest in a underrepresented area of reenacting.....it's not all that surprising its on the decline. I was the only one to answer the actual OP, and provide an unit that does ACW native impressions of units with Watie.......I sincerely hope if he contacted them, that they were a bit more encouraging of his interest.

 

[Scott1967]

I would imagine Native Americans have better things to do than to take part in re-enactment of a War they were barely involved with.

Most native re-enactors are involved in cultural heritage and preserving their own histories in the East the would be more towards the wars they fought heavily in like King Philips , WoI , 1812 etc and in the west the Great Plains wars both North and South.

The Native Americans had little to no impact in the civil war but if some like the Cherokee and Choctaw want to form their own re-enactment society's more power to them at least it would be authentic unlike black confederates.

But seriously nobody should impersonate anybody of a different race its stupid and insulting also embarrassing.

 

[major bill]

Another thought. I will not complain about 300+ pound Confederate or Union solders today because of what I once saw at a reenactments here once.

A very pale 350 pound man in a breechcloth. I believe the brechcloth was probably well researched and was the period correct width and length. Sadly as a man's girth grows, so too should the size of his "period" correct breechcloth. I thought I heard the period correct birch bark canoe saying a prayer.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

very pale 350 pound man in a breechcloth. I believe the brechcloth was probably well researched and was the period correct width and length. Sadly as a man's girth grows, so too should the size of his "period" correct breechcloth. I thought I heard the period correct birch bark canoe saying a prayer.

Sadly, what is once seen can't be unseen!