"Battlefield scavenge" Topic

Hello all, quick question. It is well known the CSA would take anything from the battlefield of use the Union left behind after a battle if they could. But…..I don't really see much about the Union doing the same.
I assume this is probably because of two reasons, one, they normally had more than enough of everything and second, the CSA equipment was probably no better or often much worse then what the union troops already had and would want to use it.
Am I correct that the Union didn't really scavenge that much compared to the CSA???? Thanks!!

When Grant captured Vicksburg he let any of his units that wanted to do it swap their weapons for those of the Rebels, and quite a few of them did so.

Especially tobacco.

Agree. Up until about late 1863/early 1864 some of the Union regiments in west had poorer rifles than the Confederates so that sort of "scavenging" was OK.

Jim

Huh…well I didn't know that, everything I read as you guys can imagine suggest the north always had plenty and had just as good or better of everything…..equipment wise. Hum, thanks for the feed back.interesting….but I assume it is still safe to say it was mostly the CSA that needed equipment and took it from the battlefield whenever they could?? Thanks.

More so as time went on, gamer1. I remember some comment that Union canteens were less prone to leakage, and so especially prized and Confederate fuses were poorly thought of. But I can't see a barefoot Union soldier--there were plenty in the Antietam campaign--turning down Confederate shoes.

I'd say that more often the CSA scavenged, but until 1864, it may have been 60/40 and not 90/10.

The only story I've heard is that some of the nice warm woolen clothing the Union troops were issued were not so comfortable as you got further south, so there was some interest in cotton clothing. As always, clothing in the "wrong" color was discouraged by the command.

Grelber

Neither government, nor the state governments, were prepared to arm and equip the vast number of men who volunteered at first, and it took a while for them to catch up, the Union mostly with contracts to private businesses (and was often defrauded or provided with poor quality stuff), the Confederacy mostly by importing stuff from Europe before the blockade got tight enough to prevent it.

'clothing in the "wrong" color was discouraged by the command.'

It was worse than "discouraged," Grelber, and for excellent reason. At one point Union commanders had to give warning that everyone understood about shoes and trousers, but the next Confederate they caught wearing a Union coat was going to be shot as a spy--and rightly so. One of the purposes of uniforms is to keep war from becoming even worse than it inherently is. Not being able to tell who is an enemy combatant--and hence who is not--is high on the list of ways to make a bad thing even worse.

Lee, however, argued that clothing was a legitimate part of booty, like weapons and rations.

What about ammunition, cannon guff and horses?

And rations?
Bags and bed rolls?

I would guess the freshest side would be more likely to have stuff taken if they lost.

Traveling miles and sleeping rough to rock up and see the enemy all rested and neatly pressed may have you fight a little harder just for what they have on them.

I'm curious just how noticeable the color of the uniform coat was after a month of active campaigning at a distance of 100 yards or more. I remember reading once how a British infantry and artillery officer compared their coats (red v. blue) after active campaigning in the Iberian Peninsula and found the color similar.

I was reading of an account of a Union reg't., having worn out their bootees marching back an forth between VA. and PA., got issued Confederate footwear, made in England, captured off a blockade runner. The troops preferred them to US issue bootees.