"Shoddy" How it's made

[dahenry]

I'm trawling through the "Western Reserve Chronicle" for information on the 41st O.V.I. and came across this account in the October 16th, 1861 edition (page 1):

How "Shoddy Is Made.
Woolen rags are worth $5 and $10 per ton, for making cloth. Fine black scraps are worth $100 and $150 per ton. The shoddy manufacturer passes them through a rag machine, which tears the rags to wool, and cleans them of dust. When reduced to soft wool, the shoddy is saturated with oil or milk , and mixed with new wool, in as large a proportion as possible.
White shoddy is used in blankets and light-colored goods , and the dark descriptions for coarse kinds of cloths, carpets, etc. The "shoddy" is the product of soft woolens, but hard or black cloths, when treated in a similar manner, produce "mungo," which is used exclusively in superfine cloths, which have a finish that may deceive a good judge. It is used largely in felted fabrics. Shoddy in the cloth of a coat will soon rub out of the cloth, and accumulate between it and the lining. In New York there are six shoddy mills, most of them on the North River.

Possibly contractors started using more "shoddy" or "mungo" than was advisable?

Dave

 

[John Winn]

Thanks for that. I had known that "shoddy" referred to a poorly-made cloth but really didn't know the real definition. I thought it was a general term for cheap fabric. So I learned something.

Wonder why "mungo" didn't catch on as a general term for cheaply-made goods ?

 

[peteanddelmar]

Around here shoddy was anything sub- par.

 

[Patrick H]

"Shoddy" means sub-par to me, too, but I never gave a thought to the original of the term. Maybe our friend has just introduced me to the first use of the term.

 

[dahenry]

Don't hold me to this, but I think our definition of the word "shoddy" came about from the manufacture of woolen cloth that failed miserably during the U.S. Civil War. I think shoddy had been around for some time, used as a sort of additive in the manufacture of various articles of clothing, but then uniform contractors decided to use more and more of it in the clothing they produced to minimize cost and maximize profits, before long Union regiments were walking around with uniforms that disintegrated in a light breeze.

Dave

 

[Patrick H]

Don't hold me to this, but I think our definition of the word "shoddy" came about from the manufacture of woolen cloth that failed miserably during the U.S. Civil War. I think shoddy had been around for some time, used as a sort of additive in the manufacture of various articles of clothing, but then uniform contractors decided to use more and more of it in the clothing they produced to minimize cost and maximize profits, before long Union regiments were walking around with uniforms that disintegrated in a light breeze.

Dave

This seems perfectly logical to me. Thanks!

 

[Specster]

Don't hold me to this, but I think our definition of the word "shoddy" came about from the manufacture of woolen cloth that failed miserably during the U.S. Civil War. I think shoddy had been around for some time, used as a sort of additive in the manufacture of various articles of clothing, but then uniform contractors decided to use more and more of it in the clothing they produced to minimize cost and maximize profits, before long Union regiments were walking around with uniforms that disintegrated in a light breeze.

Dave

Without looking it up, that was my understanding as well ....a civil war term with its origins in sub standard cloth, for the purposes of making a profit not normally realized. After the 2nd WW I believe there were senate hearings on similar topics generally called "profiteering"

 

[ErnieMac]

The shoddy process had been developed in England roughly 50 years before the Civil War. It was developed as a means to supplement virgin wool in the manufacturing process as the quantity of virgin material available was not sufficient to meet the demand for woolen clothing at a price most of the population of the British Isles could afford. It was in fact an early form of recycling. Not mentioned in the source cited in the OP was that the cleaned and shredded material was mixed with virgin wool, coated with an adhesive glue and then run through a press resulting in sheets of shoddy cloth. The cloth would then be cut and sewn into clothing.

The word shoddy obtained its present reputation as a result of the Civil War. The combined effects of meeting demand and maximizing profits led manufacturers to cut corners and produce an inferior material. Instead of using "as large a proportion as possible" of virgin wool as stated in the OP the manufacturers cut the amount as much as they thought they could get away with. The manufacturer's also skimped on the shredding and cleaning processes. Dust produced in the shredding process, which would be used to fertilize fields in normal times, was mixed in with the wool and glue. As a result much of the the material literally fell apart in the first good rain when the glue dissolved. The stress of military campaigning took care of the rest.

In New York one of the prime uniform contractors was Brooks Brothers, the noted men's clothier. The uniforms the company produced in the early days of the war seem to have been of notoriously poor quality. When questioned as to whether the company should reimburse the government for using substandard materials one of the owners, Elisha Brooks replied "I think that I cannot ascertain the difference without spending more time than I can now devote to that purpose." During the 1863 New York City Draft Riots the Brooks Brothers' manufacturing and warehouse facilities were singled out for destruction. Veterans among the rioters were probably taking a bit of revenge for the quality of the uniforms they had to wear into battle.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/the-unions-shoddy-aristocracy/?_r=0
http://www.civilwarbummer.com/lincolns-war-profiteers-or-the-gruesome-twosome/

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

Brooks Brothers made inferior uniforms for the Union army ?

I learn something every week on these forums.

 

[ole]

Brooks Brothers made inferior uniforms for the Union army ?

I learn something every week on these forums.

Probably not as bad as it sounds.

I thought I knew what shoddy was, but Ernie Mac's post clarified that it had been used in the manufacture of civilian clothes for some years.

I'm not making excuses for them, but it might not have been as bad as it looks.

 

[major bill]

Shoddy is often in the eye of the beholder. Here are some notes on a Michiagn Regiment The State found the martial used up to standard, but the men called them shoddy.

The contract for gray uniforms for the 3rd Michigan Volunteer Infantry Regiment was awarded to Lewis Porter. He was not only a local Grand Rapids clothing merchant but also politically well-connected being a former Senator. Lewis Porter apparently had the uniforms made in Cincinnati Ohio; the uniforms were also reported to have been made up in either Detroit or Grand Rapids.http://civilwartalk.com/#_edn1 These Porter supplied uniforms included gray satinet roundabout jackets, gray pants and gray overcoats with 'jaunty little' gray caps.[ii]

The Barry Pioneer reported that regimental members on leave wore uniforms of grey cloth which was very becoming and comfortable.[iii] The Cleveland Herald described the 3rd Michigan Infantry as it passed through Cleveland on June 16 as being in gray uniforms like those worn by Wisconsin.[iv] The Detroit Daily Tribune published on July 4 1861 a letter that describes the 3rd Michigan as being in thick gray uniforms.

The quality of the 3rd Michigan Infantry Regiment's uniforms was questioned in Michigan newspapers almost as soon as they were issued. Lewis Porter who had supplied the uniforms insisted that they were made up the required government standards but questions about their quality continued for some time.[v] The State investigated the claims that the uniforms were of inferior quality and decided that the uniforms were up to requested standards. ""From conversations with three of the commissioned officers today I learned with great satisfaction, that the clothing furnished by the Hon. Lewis Porter, EX Senator form this county, who is the contractor, come fully up to the standards required by the Government, in point of material and manufacture. Inspector Major Leffingwell, a gentleman of distinction connected with the military board of this State, with competent assistants, have been engaged during the entire week in the arduous labor of inspection, and they are emphatic in their approval of the manner Mr. Porter has fulfilled his contract." The state inspectors however did not have wear the uniforms and the men who did have to wear the uniforms[vi] still did not believe the uniforms up to their expectations.

The Third Regiment's gray uniforms did not wear well under field conditions. Charles B. Haydon of the 2nd Michigan Volunteer Infantry Regiment observed the 3rd Michigan Infantry and wrote in his journal "They are a good looking set of men but their uniform does not look very well. It was originally grey but has become very dirty & has now a dull lifeless appearance. If (sic.) offers a very poor mark to the enemy but it has not the fresh lively appearance of blue with bright buttons."[vii] Latter that fall Daniel G. Crotty again raised the issue of the quality of the uniforms when he wrote "For at this time we throwing off the dirty, shoddy suit of gray, furnish us by a shoddy contractor at Grand Rapids."[viii]


http://civilwartalk.com/#_ednref1 'The War Feeling', Adrian Daily Expositor, June 7 1861, p.1, col.3.
[ii] "Stray Leaves from Camp No. 2, Cantonment Anderson, June 2 1861, signed Frank", Lansing State Republican, June 5 1861, p.2, col.3.
[iii] "Returned", Barry Pioneer 9Hastings), June 6 1861, p. 3, col. 1.
[iv] "The Third Regiment", reprinted from the Cleveland Herald, Detroit Daily Advertiser, June 17 1861, p. 1, col.2
[v] "Affairs at Grand Rapid, Letter from Grand Rapids, Jun 1 1861 signed "Kent" Detroit Daily Advertiser, June 4 1861, p. 1, col. 1.
[vi] "Affairs at Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids June 1 1861, letter signed by Kent," Detroit Daily Advertiser, June 4 1861, p. 1, col.1.
[vii] For Country, Cause & Leader 'The Civil War Journal of Charles B. Haydon' Ed. By Stephen W. Sears, Ticknor & Field, New York, 1993, p.27.
[viii] Crotty, Daniel G., Four Years Campaigning in the Army of the Potomac, Dygert Bros. & Co., Grand Rapids, MI., 1874. Corporal Crotty does not give an exact date, but places this after the First Battle of Bull Run.

 

[Specster]

The shoddy process had been developed in England roughly 50 years before the Civil War. It was developed as a means to supplement virgin wool in the manufacturing process as the quantity of virgin material available was not sufficient to meet the demand for woolen clothing at a price most of the population of the British Isles could afford. It was in fact an early form of recycling. Not mentioned in the source cited in the OP was that the cleaned and shredded material was mixed with virgin wool, coated with an adhesive glue and then run through a press resulting in sheets of shoddy cloth. The cloth would then be cut and sewn into clothing.

The word shoddy obtained its present reputation as a result of the Civil War. The combined effects of meeting demand and maximizing profits led manufacturers to cut corners and produce an inferior material. Instead of using "as large a proportion as possible" of virgin wool as stated in the OP the manufacturers cut the amount as much as they thought they could get away with. The manufacturer's also skimped on the shredding and cleaning processes. Dust produced in the shredding process, which would be used to fertilize fields in normal times, was mixed in with the wool and glue. As a result much of the the material literally fell apart in the first good rain when the glue dissolved. The stress of military campaigning took care of the rest.

In New York one of the prime uniform contractors was Brooks Brothers, the noted men's clothier. The uniforms the company produced in the early days of the war seem to have been of notoriously poor quality. When questioned as to whether the company should reimburse the government for using substandard materials one of the owners, Elisha Brooks replied "I think that I cannot ascertain the difference without spending more time than I can now devote to that purpose." During the 1863 New York City Draft Riots the Brooks Brothers' manufacturing and warehouse facilities were singled out for destruction. Veterans among the rioters were probably taking a bit of revenge for the quality of the uniforms they had to wear into battle.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/the-unions-shoddy-aristocracy/?_r=0
http://www.civilwarbummer.com/lincolns-war-profiteers-or-the-gruesome-twosome/

Good work

 

[Drew]

EarnieMac's nailed it. What started as a noun morphed into an adjective due to a poor choice of cloth for its intended purpose, only aggravated by cost saving corner cutting in it manufacture. The stuff just fell apart.