"Dark Blue Trousers on Federal Troops" Topic

On the web site of the Liberty Rifles is an excellent collection of photos that indicate that Federal units continued to make use of dark blue trousers well into the war. This could provide a basis for adding some variety to Federal troops. The site can be seen at:

link

Indeed – some Indiana and Michigan state regiments were issued with all dark blue uniforms during the course of the war

But it was VERY rare.

Bob

And don't fall for that old story from the "Uniforms of the Civil War" book that shows the 20th Maine Infantry in dark blue trousers.

That regiment was, indeed, issued with them and left Maine wearing them. When they arrived in DC, the men complained lour and long about how warm and uncomfortable they were, and the unit was issued with light-blue trousers before leaving the city.

The story can be found in the Maine State Archives in a personal letter in the 20th Maine's records.

Remember your officers should be in dark blue trousers in the early mid period and some retained them throughout the war.

Very interesting. Thanks!

Agree it was rare – but, then again, there were 1000 regiments in the Federal army, giving you lots of scope

I believe the 4th Michigan volunteer infantry (the Wolverines) noted for their magnificent fight in the Wheat Field at Gettysburg, wore dark blue trousers throughout the war.

On the wargame table,really, what does it matter? 54mil, yeah it probably matters to somebody.

Matters to me, or it used to, but that IS just me too!

As with everything else, dark blue trousers have some validity, and some evidence, but they were not very common, and that's the facts!!

I'm interested in the comment about them being hotter. For Reenacting I have both light and dark blue pants. I really can't say one is warmer than the other.

I suspect they became less common not because of heat, but because it was cheaper to make the light blue dye.

Some states did issue dark blue trousers, but generally the rule was: Light Blue for Volunteers and Dark Blue for Regulars. However the Federal Government stopped issuing dark blue mid way through the war.

All general and most field grade officers and staff officers would wear dark blue. Signal and Engineer officers as well.

The light blue trousers were known to fade differently. Some evolved into a pea green, from what I've heard.

If you want variety, you'll have to paint Confederates. Even then, I'm sure there is plenty of research you'll have to do based on specific dates.

Specific units properly adorned with the exact uniform of a particular battle is all well and good. But if you want to have at least a little variety, and not nessisarily play a historic battle, then give one of your units dark pants. Have a zouve unit, and use those iron brigade hats, the name of which escapes me at the moment. Have some units that are all kepi, and some with a few hats.

The point is, each individual unit should have it's own character, and you should be able to spot them from 3 feet away. Ho hum to a fed army that all looks the same.

Ho hum to a fed army that all looks the same.
>>
It may be ho hum as you say,but it was fact. As the War went on the Fed Govt.,in order to ease supply issues ordered MOST units into regulation uniforms, sack coat,trousers,forage cap(NOT kepi!).
EVERY guy in a Fed regt. did not wear a forage cap,some occasionally wore the odd black round,or slouch hat. The regt's. in the Iron Brigade wore the regulation Hardee hat from 62 onwards.

Some brigades looked all identical,some had a zouave regt. or two.But the MOST common uniform of Federal troops is the "ho hum" sack coat,forage cap,sky blue trouser!

Boring,but realistic!

Bob C.

I'd go further than 95thRegt, and add that the "variety" of Confederate uniforms is overstated. Sure, there were some varieties, but the styles would be barely recognizable in 15mm, and the colors are "exciting" varieties of browns, grays, and other earthy-toned attempts at creating gray fabric.

I'd go further than 95thRegt, and add that the "variety" of Confederate uniforms is overstated. Sure, there were some varieties, but the styles would be barely recognizable in 15mm, and the colors are "exciting" varieties of browns, grays, and other earthy-toned attempts at creating gray fabric.
>>
And no "butternut"!!

Me and my friends will be at the Cashtown Inn next weekend portraying Confederate troops.there will be NO butternut to be see!
Just shades of shades of gray jean,sumac and kersey.

Bob C.

Dark blue is harder to see in 15mm.

Wanted to add, those are some great photos. Thanks for the link.

Stylistically I think you try and make some parameters for youself.. Generally, units got issued similar clothing at the same time. So it wore out generally at the same rate. And I'm sure there were times when you would see a brigade that was outfitted in an assortment of clothing, especially on a hard marching campaign in the middle of summer… when dumping or burning smelly, dirty, lice/flee infested items was looked forward to.

From the miniature wargame perspective, if you have 20 fig regiments and each fig equals 20-30 men, then I try and be carefull about throwing too much variety into a miniature unit. IMO, you want a unit, not a collection of individuals.

Regarding Union 15mm's, I've seen plenty of examples where trouser color has been varied by unit and it works. Not to mention 4 years of uniform changes to pick from including the early war years and zouaves, etc.. Add in making units with a variety of miniature lines and the wide selection of flags to choose from and there's plenty of room for artistic license in the ho hum Fed camp.

I believe the regulars wore dark blue pants fairly late in the war.

Jagger,

That would be unlikely.

The regulations changed in 1861 to replace dark blue trowsers with light (Saxon) blue. Dark blue were still available for issue in large quantities in both the Federal as well as State inventories, and these would have been issued until the supply was exhausted.

Now, FWIW, the Federal depots were always willing to provide specific uniform requests upon demand, provided that any additional costs were born by the unit requesting them. Thus, Federal Zouave uniforms of various patterns and materials were available for purchase through the Federal Government till the close of the war. It took a little longer, as the depot had to contract them or produce them in house, but it was done.

The same sort of thing applied to Confederate depots. The depot issued what was on hand, but would willingly take cash orders from units (or individual officers) for specific articles. There is an "officer's pattern" haversack id'd as commonly made available through the Richmond Depot. Also, there is a uniform coat on display at Mannassas Battlefield park for the Washington Artillery. It was part of an order placed in 1864. It is made of blue-grey kersey with red piping. The battery paid cash to have these made, so as to keep it's uniform appearance.

But back to the point: Images of regular troops in the field find them uniformly clothed with sack coats, light blue trowsers, and forage caps. The officers wore either commercially-made sacks with black slouch hats, or dress coats with caps or hats. I have yet to see an ID'd image of US regulars on campaign with dress coats and hats. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but with all the images available, the only time you see them in coats and hats is in garrison or winter quarters.

Dark blue trowsers after mid-1862 would be a rarity, and confined to an entire unit, vice a few here and there. Officers excepted, of course.

Respects,

Thanks Kindred. Photos are more convincing than my vague recollection.

I'm looking at an interesting picture. It's in Miller's Photographic History, the volume with the Campaign for Atlanta (Decisive Battles). There is a picture of the 2nd Minnesota in 1864. It appears as if the entire regiment has dark blue trousers. I thought it might be a trick of the light, but the company in the middle (the color company maybe?) obviously has lighter trousers. So do several figures at the end of the formation, and right next to it. So I don't think its because the sun is behind the men and the pants might be in the shadows.

I saw a gamer that painted a union regiment with light gray trousers….any basis for that?

Ghost6, early in the war you'd find plenty of units wearing gray trousers, of course they usually had a gray jacket to match. That said, I know for certain that both the 1st and 2nd Rhode Island wore gray trousers with their dark blue "Burnside Blouses" at 1st Manassas. They probably weren't the only ones, though I don't have any data handy.

The 2nd MN infantry wore the light blue trousers as did all of the MN state troops, apart form the officers in the early war period. The 1st MN during the 1st Bull Run campaign did have a very different uniform but this was quickly replaced.

There is a pituce in the MN Governor's office of the Battle of Nashville with a unit in wat initially appears to be dark blue trousers. This is actually the 5th MN.

link

Hope this helps

Elliott

There is some evidence of just about all of the different possibilities mentioned. Mostly they were either rare or of very short duration! The "sky blue" (in numerous shades also) trousers dominated! Some variety never hurts, within some limits!

What about this picture of the 2nd Minnesota?

link

Maybe taken early in the war in 1861?

Possibly not the 2nd Minnesota at all?

Interesting Cleburne.

The photo is that of the 2nd. My friends in the reenactment up use it on their web site.

I've just wrtitten to the reenactment unit to see what they have to say on this issue.

Elliott

The 2nd Minnesota were wearing dark blue trousers at the Battle of Mill Springs, Kentucky, January 1862.

Here is what I found out about the 2nd MN, information supplied by the current reenactment unit.

It would appear that the photograph was taken in 1861 rather than 1864 as stated. The buildings in the background look like Ft Snelling, but there isn't much to go on other than the following:

"When the second Minnesota started recruiting in late July of 1861 some of them men were in Red shirt and Blue trousers and Civilian Clothes. The war department sent out uniforms to fort snelling and they arrive in September. They were suppose to be for the First Minnesota but they left in late June and got there uniforms in Washington. The Second Minnesota was issued mostly Frock coats and some Sack coats (You will notice that one company in that photo is wearing sack coats) and Dark blue trousers.

The second was mustered in early October and left for Washington a week later. The photograph you see was taken early September and you notice that not all the companies are present because some of them were station on the frontier.

The Second Minnesota would end up in Louisville and would find themselves fighting in the western theater. When they arrived in Kentucky they were issue sack coats. Before they left for Somerset KY they pack up there frock coats and sent them home. They would fight in the battle of Mill Springs (January 1862) and a few small skirmishes until they went back to Louisville in May 1862. This would be the first time they were issue Sky Blue trousers.

So to answer your questions. The Second Minnesota was in dark blue trouser from the time they were mustered in (October 1861) to the May 1862."

That makes the most sense. I figured if it was the 2nd Minnesota, the caption was probably wrong and it was from earlier in the war.

Regarding head coverings. I'm fairly sure the hat, kepi, or other uniform details, were according to the likes and dislikes of the regimental commander, and somewhat governed by what the home state wanted/provided for its units.

I have a couple ACW letters from family members. In one (1864 – I think), from a MA regiment, the writer is asking for shirts (and something else) for his unit. That would lead me to believe the Feds didn't provide everything. If I can find the time I'll track it down.

Also, everyone knows that a campaign takes a toll on everything, differences and variations are bound to appear. At the pointy end of the stick no one cares about the uniform details as long as you basically look like you belong with the unit. Painting units that look like the parade ground photos, or IAW the regulations, means the units look like units on review on the parade ground, not the ones on campaign.

Have fun, toss in a few oddities. Millions served and they could not possibly have all looked exactly alike, nor IAW the uniform regulations. It's a hobby, enjoy it. If anyone should say, "That's not the right hat, or shade, or whatever" just tell them there's an opening in the Napoleonic game at the next table.

"I have a couple ACW letters from family members. In one (1864 – I think), from a MA regiment, the writer is asking for shirts (and something else) for his unit."

I have a copy of a similar letter from a member of the 4th Maryland asking for civilian work boots.

A number of Vermont Volunteer regiments, including the 14th in which my great-g-g-g uncle served, and died, wore dark blue trousers through 1862.

One of the reasons you hear soldiers asking for shirts from home is because the Army issue items were coarse and scratchy. They were basically a one-size-fits-all garment, and made of domet flannel. The shirts were a pull-over, with a simple fold-over collar, and a single button at the top of the plaquet.

You can imagine wearing a coarse flannel shirt in summer, with a wool-flannel coat over the top. A lined, wool-flannel coat no less.

Many soldiers asked for nice cotton shirts from home, and would send their issue ones back to have them made into other garments for the kids, etc.

One of the reasons you hear soldiers asking for shirts from home is because the Army issue items were coarse and scratchy. They were basically a one-size-fits-all garment, and made of domet flannel. The shirts were a pull-over, with a simple fold-over collar, and a single button at the top of the plaquet.

You can imagine wearing a coarse flannel shirt in summer, with a wool-flannel coat over the top. A lined, wool-flannel coat no less.

Many soldiers asked for nice cotton shirts from home, and would send their issue ones back to have them made into other garments for the kids, etc.
>>
You beat me to it! I have a couple of those scratchy things,and I can see why they were unpopular! I too have 2 nice handsewn civilian shirts that I wear when I do Federal.Event organizers TRY to get everyone to wear issue shirts,but that doesn't always work!

Bob

I'm with moonhippie on this one. I do not doubt that the realism of the period is less variation but considering that I am painting at 1:20 … the only way for me to express any variation is going to be an unrealistic expression. So goes.

I have nothing against those who want to go with uniform uniforms, it just isn't for me. I paint my Confederate brigades (JR2) all in the same uniform and issue the same banner. My Union brigades each regiment will have slight variation, painted for their own purpose. My 1st Minnesota is in their red jackets and their officers in dark blue, 69th New York has green collars and cuffs. Shade of the blanket roll, shade of blues used, etc. I painted up the Stonewall Brigade in all dark gray jackets with tan pants, they look good, primarily brown slouch hats with some medium gray kepis. Historical? Eh, might be. Plausible? Certainly.

Again, I am not knocking those who paint with "realism" like purist intentions, just like giving my figures more unique characters.

Cheers,

The Bandit

69th New York has green collars and cuffs.
>>
People STILL do this??

The 69th,along with the 63rd and 88th NY,all wore NY State jackets with light blue piping on the epaulettes and collar. There was no green to be found!
And no,they didn't wear those gray trousers either!
Grrr…

Bob
Not a realist,authentic!

Bob,

Yep…. that Ballantine book has so many errors in it, it's almost better to use it as a reference for how NOT to paint your troops.

V/R

In addition to dark blue pants, this photo confirms that at least SOME union soldiers carried I-pods …

picture

Come on figure makers, here's an opportunity to be first to produce an Ipod using Yank (or Reb)! :-)

DCW1962, that is a Blackberry. Note the stylus in his right hand.

"69th New York has green collars and cuffs.
>>
People STILL do this??

The 69th,along with the 63rd and 88th NY,all wore NY State jackets with light blue piping on the epaulettes and collar. There was no green to be found!
And no,they didn't wear those gray trousers either!
Grrr…

Bob
Not a realist,authentic!"

Yep, people still paint their own stuff their own way. Funny Americans.

Cheers,

The Bandit

There is a similar disconnect between representation and reality in Fire & Fury – units are Brigades, but almost every player I have ever seen paints up uniform brigades. Add in the almost universal lust for 'Something not in a Sack Coat and Forage Cap' among Union Players, and you get Zouave Brigades on the table!

I carried out a little spot-count, and while the average Union player I have met had Zouaves, almost none of the Confederate players did. Lust for Variety sated already, you see,

Pat