New Confederate uniform book 'Never In Rags'

AUG

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
7,354
Location
Texas
Oh Lord......................

LOL................

Looking at some of these post, it is clear the "yankee" history is......

The union army was......

Outnumbered
under supplied with food, clothes and arms
Their horses were thin as fence rails
Oh woe is me.......................


What about all those 1,000's of letters complaining of no shoes, or blankets, or tents ?

What of those letters from Union civilians speaking of "those ragged, dirty, shoe less rebels" ?

Ahhhhhhhhh thats right.............Let's just sweep them to the side, under the rug, and out of sight..........lol

If the Confederate Soldier was well supplied, let's put the true reason it was.......

Good old Uncle Sam............The yankee solder's and generals had a very hard time keeping control of their supplies, for some reason their supplies (food, clothing, arms) just could not retreat as fast as the soldiers could.

Now with all fun aside........

Was every Confederate soldier under supplied? shoe less? or arm less?.....................No.............But let's not LIE and make the Confederate armies the grandest, most well supplied armies in history.........


Respectfully,
William
View attachment 143434
Despite the name of the book I don't think the point being stated is that they were never in rags. They certainly were dirty, scruffy, sometimes ragged when the campaigning was rough, but not always, and not to the extent that many have made them out to be. Their appearance varied and changed over time depending on where, who, and when. I do believe it when the Rebs themselves said they were in poor condition on certain occasions, but I know they weren't in that condition all the time - they don't say that either. Nothing is being swept under the rug, just analyzing the facts to get a better idea what they looked like.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

johan_steele

Regimental Armorer
Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
14,773
Location
South of the North 40
Despite the name of the book I don't think the point being stated is that they were never in rags. They certainly were dirty, scruffy, sometimes ragged when the campaigning was rough, but not always, and not to the extent that many have made them out to be. Their appearance varied and changed over time depending on where, who, and when. I do believe it when the Rebs themselves said they were in poor condition on certain occasions, but I know they weren't in that condition all the time - they don't say that either. Nothing is being swept under the rug, just analyzing the facts to get a better idea what they looked like.
Shhh, how dare you use reason and research.

Had the ragged barefoot rebel have been the norm instead of the exception pictures of him would have been plastered all over by US newspapers. But the ragged rebel mythos doesn't really get started until the Lost Cause narrative got going. Now we have Lost Cause idolizers trying to keep the myth alive. The only way to do that is to lie to themselves and everyone else. But they do it "respectfully" to hide behind a pretense of honesty and integrity.

The reality is the CS made Herculean efforts to arm, equip & clothe the men on the sharp end. They were hampered by the inept & the corrupt.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
5,555
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
Despite the name of the book I don't think the point being stated is that they were never in rags. They certainly were dirty, scruffy, sometimes ragged when the campaigning was rough, but not always, and not to the extent that many have made them out to be. Their appearance varied and changed over time depending on where, who, and when. I do believe it when the Rebs themselves said they were in poor condition on certain occasions, but I know they weren't in that condition all the time - they don't say that either. Nothing is being swept under the rug, just analyzing the facts to get a better idea what they looked like.

Oh I totally agree that ALL Confederate soldiers were not in ragged, rugged, dirty condition, nor were they all hungry, shoe less, or inadequately armed. That just was not so, but it appears that some, and the title wish to portray that it was a very, very few. It was not all of them at anytime, it was not some of them all the time, but it was much more than a "few" and more often they did without, than they did not.

Campaigning, weather, and the everyday wear and tare always has an effect on the physical condition of the soldier, the clothing, and the equipment. There are facts that show Confederate Regiments receiving a full allotment of clothing. How long did the clothing last? How good was it's quality? How long in between the next resupply?

It seems to be a myth making, that the Confederate Soldier was well fed, well clothed, well armed, and never had any wants.........Analyzing the facts?..............All the facts or pick and choosing facts to fit an agenda?

If one wishes to say that at times, any Confederate soldier, or regiment may be well clothed and supplied, at other times, any Confederate soldier, or regiment may be in ragged worn out condition................I totally agree.............


Respectfully,
William
Burning Of Chambersburg, Pa.jpg
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
5,555
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
Shhh, how dare you use reason and research.

Had the ragged barefoot rebel have been the norm instead of the exception pictures of him would have been plastered all over by US newspapers. But the ragged rebel mythos doesn't really get started until the Lost Cause narrative got going. Now we have Lost Cause idolizers trying to keep the myth alive. The only way to do that is to lie to themselves and everyone else. But they do it "respectfully" to hide behind a pretense of honesty and integrity.

The reality is the CS made Herculean efforts to arm, equip & clothe the men on the sharp end. They were hampered by the inept & the corrupt.

So the letters, and reports throughout the war, and many by Union civilians of the ragged, tattered, dirty conditions of the rebel solder are all lies? :smile:

It is Liars who wish to make myths to portray their Union as..............

Outnumbered
out gunned
under supplied

So as to attempt to explain why it took them 4 long years to win the war, they should have had no problem winning.................

Respectfully,
William
Ambrose Wright.jpg
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,597
Location
Denmark
So the letters, and reports throughout the war, and many by Union civilians of the ragged, tattered, dirty conditions of the rebel solder are all lies? :smile:

View attachment 143485
And we got mentions in the OR of ragged, dirty and shoeless union soldiers.

Campaigning in the musketperiod was dirty and shoes and uniforms don't last that long.
This was an issue for both sides.
And much of the time, the issue was not lack of materials, but logistical and operational issues that made issuing the materials to the soldiers problematic.

When the armies was in camp you issued new clothing and shoes. It was hard to do when the army was in the field for obvious logistical reasons.. like the fact that things that can go "Bang" is more important and you wanted to limit the number of wagons your had.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
5,555
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
And we got mentions in the OR of ragged, dirty and shoeless union soldiers.

Campaigning in the musketperiod was dirty and shoes and uniforms don't last that long.
This was an issue for both sides.
And much of the time, the issue was not lack of materials, but logistical and operational issues that made issuing the materials to the soldiers problematic.

When the armies was in camp you issued new clothing and shoes. It was hard to do when the army was in the field for obvious logistical reasons.. like the fact that things that can go "Bang" is more important and you wanted to limit the number of wagons your had.

Thomas,

I agree whole heartily and have never denied that Union solders also suffered, but to attempt to make like the Confederate solder was always well supplied and clothed, never in rags or under supplied, as some here attempt to do, and as the title of the books in discussion suggest "Never in rags" is just pure lies.

Respectfully,
William
Justice is Blind.JPG
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,597
Location
Denmark
sound like you have not read the entire topic...

(the writer made this comment -
"‘Never in Rags’ – a provocative title purposely chosen to promote discussion, debate and heated argument within the Civil War fraternity.")
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
5,555
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
sound like you have not read the entire topic...
Never in Rags...............Is what catches everyone's attention. As if, the Confederate Army was NEVER in rags..........

So Thomas........

Was the Confederate soldier always well supplied, always well clothed?

Was there at times the Confederate Soldiers was well supplied, and well clothed?

Were their times that some Confederate Soldiers were well supplied and well clothed, while at the same time some Confederate Soldiers were not well supplied or well clothed?


Respectfully,
William
Barkesdale.jpg
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,597
Location
Denmark
Never in Rags...............Is what catches everyone's attention. As if, the Confederate Army was NEVER in rags..........

So Thomas........


View attachment 143515
And you have still not read the whole topic.

The writer don't claim that they where "never in rags".
It is just the title of a book. A title deliberately selected to provoke... as he told us in a post.
(And the title obviously work)

What he do claim is that the situation was not as bad as how you want us all to think.

In this topic he have already provided 10x the evidence of how things where than you have.
I will trust a guy who provide evidence over one who dont and just call everyone else fools and liars.
 

AUG

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
7,354
Location
Texas
Oh I totally agree that ALL Confederate soldiers were not in ragged, rugged, dirty condition, nor were they all hungry, shoe less, or inadequately armed. That just was not so, but it appears that some, and the title wish to portray that it was a very, very few. It was not all of them at anytime, it was not some of them all the time, but it was much more than a "few" and more often they did without, than they did not.

Campaigning, weather, and the everyday wear and tare always has an effect on the physical condition of the soldier, the clothing, and the equipment. There are facts that show Confederate Regiments receiving a full allotment of clothing. How long did the clothing last? How good was it's quality? How long in between the next resupply?

It seems to be a myth making, that the Confederate Soldier was well fed, well clothed, well armed, and never had any wants.........Analyzing the facts?..............All the facts or pick and choosing facts to fit an agenda?

If one wishes to say that at times, any Confederate soldier, or regiment may be well clothed and supplied, at other times, any Confederate soldier, or regiment may be in ragged worn out condition................I totally agree.............


Respectfully,
William
View attachment 143461
Point is they were better uniformed than is commonly thought. Yes, there are accounts of Confederate soldiers ragged, shoeless, etc., but there are also accounts, records, reports, that suggest they were relatively well supplied - no, not always, but better than is widely believed. In the later stages of the war they were in fact better uniformed than ever before, with clothing depots in the East and West, imported uniforms and cloth being shipped in. I don't think the argument made by the OP is so much that they didn't ever get dirty, ragged and torn, but more so that they were sufficiently supplied by the systems in place.

We should keep in mind that "well uniformed" can mean several things: 1) clean, not ragged and dirty; 2) sufficiently supplied with clothing; 3) same color and cut.

1) Could vary depending on who, when and where, but certainly not always dirty and ragged. 2) As the war progressed they were better supplied by the depot system. 3) Depends on who, when, where, but not really until late in the war; the ANV was (finally) largely uniformed in cadet gray by war's end.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
5,555
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
Point is they were better uniformed than is commonly thought.

there are also accounts, records, reports, that suggest they were relatively well supplied - no, not always, but better than is widely believed.
"Point is they were better uniformed than is commonly thought"

I certainly agree with this if one's common thought was that ALL Confederate Soldiers were raggedly dressed, and ill supplied. Which I have never stated they all were.

"there are also accounts, records, reports, that suggest they were relatively well supplied - no, not always, but better than is widely believed."

Again I totally concur. Especially, as I stated above, if one's belief was that ALL Confederate Soldiers were raggedly dressed, and ill supplied at all times. Which was not the case, nor were ALL Confederate Soldiers at all times well clothed and well supplied, nor well fed.


Respectfully,
William
Civil War Flags.jpg
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
5,555
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
Johan,

If at anytime I called you a liar, I do apologize
If at anytime I called you a fool, I do apologize
If at anytime I disrespected you, I do apologize

If at anytime I made a reference that made you feel that I called you a liar, I do apologize
If at anytime I made a reference that made you feel that I called you a fool, I do apologize
If at anytime I made a reference that made you feel that I disrespected you, I do apologize

And I also apologize to the forum members, and to the thread host.

I have a habit of responding in kind as to how I am treated or as to how I see I am being treated, sometimes perhaps I respond too strongly and passionately.

Respectfully,
William
George Pickett.jpg
 

bdtex

Brigadier General
Moderator
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Regtl. Quartermaster Chickamauga 2018
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
8,089
Location
Houston,TX area
Thread reopened upon Moderator consensus. This is a book review thread. Be advised that there is a zero tolerance for thread derailment or personal attacks/insults. Violators will be deleted and thread banned.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
3,015
This is a book that is a must have for those that are seriously interested in uniforms. The title was chosen to provoke, which I believe detracts from the purpose of the tome.

I completely agree with Legion Para that references/reviews from Les, Frederick and others might have been beneficial. He does have a forward from William Frassanito, who is recognized as an expert in ACW photography, but not sure about uniforms.

I am glad that I purchased the book and have used it a few times, to confirm clothing issues.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
5,555
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
This is a book that is a must have for those that are seriously interested in uniforms. The title was chosen to provoke, which I believe detracts from the purpose of the tome.

I completely agree with Legion Para that references/reviews from Les, Frederick and others might have been beneficial. He does have a forward from William Frassanito, who is recognized as an expert in ACW photography, but not sure about uniforms.

I am glad that I purchased the book and have used it a few times, to confirm clothing issues.


I believe, no I know, this book and the other books to follow in the series are a must have for the War Between the States historian/buff. I have never doubted it's research, or contents, just how at times it was being "presented" on here by some members.

I am not sure why the title was chosen to provoke and I agree with Package4, it distracts. This book, and future volumes of the series need no provocative title or distractions to sell it. It will sell on it's on merits (Well researched, photos, drawings, paintings, and material included).

The authored has researched the subject well, and I hope to be able to add this book and the other volumes to my library.

IMHO it is a MUST have book and series....................

Respectfully,
William
Benner's Hill - Cementery Hill on Right - Culps Hill on left.jpg
 

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top