celtic confederate jackets worm with kilts

[BoldHighlander]

Terry, you make a good point. I am bent out of shape. There is no Confederate army any more and for some reason, people think that gives them justification do whatever they want with the uniform. Try this one on for size. Go down to the VA and ask any one of the men down there how they would feel about you putting on an army dress coat from WWII, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War and going to a ball. Do you think they'd be honored by this show of support or do you think they'd find it a mockery. I've never served in the Armed Forces. How would any of the active duty servicemen or women or veterans on this forum feel about me putting on Marine Corps dress blues and going to a party? When you put on a Confederate uniform for whatever purpose (whether to reenact or attend a fancy ball) you are portraying a Confederate soldier, real or imagined, so it should be done right. When, in the name of "honoring" your ancestors, you make a mockery of mine, I find it insulting.

You have every right to your opinion, but in the end it is just your opinion.

I personally do not see any intent to make a mockery of my (or their) ancestors. If, on the other hand, the intent was not honourable, then that would be different. That is my opinion, for what little its worth.

On your VA analogy: our own Riverkilt wears a reproduction of a WWII RAF service jacket with his RAF kilt. He even marched in a recent Veteran's Day parade wearing this attire. I don't believe Ron served in the RAF, but as I recall he wears it to honour his father who did. Is he making a mockery of his father's service, (or of any other RAF's veterans)? Do the vet's he's met while wearing said attire feel mocked or insulted? Why don't we ask Ron?
(and in the end does Ron really care about yours, or even my opinion regarding his choice or reasons for wearing his RAF jacket? I very much doubt it.)

Or how about the recent thread about the Swinging Six (the sporran of the Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders), in paticular the masked badger version.
I was of the opinion that a civilian version was fine to wear, but leave the military version for the guys serving (or for historical reenactment purposes). In that thread one of our newer members (a current serving officer with the A&SH's) mentioned that since the amalgamation into the Royal Regt of Scotland, that the wearing of the swinging six has ceased. He encouraged the civilian wearing of the full mask badger swinging six as a way of honouring this old tradition.
Now, what am I to make of that? Should I feel concerned about making a mockery of a very proud Highland Regiment, and possibly insulting an old jock, when I have the blessing of (currently) serving member of said regiment to wear this former uniform item (once reserved for NCO's & Officers of the Argylls)?

It's all in the eye of the beholder I suppose. And as I said earlier, its really just our own individual opinion, which in the end doesn't amount to much.

Oh, incidentally, the local air museum had their annual ball (always with a period theme). The theme two yrs ago? WWII. Those who didn't go in period civilian dress were in military dress. There was also a few WWII vets there, all of whom were thrilled by the honour paid to them. Last years ball was the Viet Nam war, and (you guessed it) a large number of the attendees (many not even born until well after the war) wore the uniform (including some Class A's). There were also plenty of vets present.....on both occasions none felt insulted or mocked.

I wonder why? (...just maybe they recognized the intent of the organizers /participants, and in turn felt honoured by it? )

[BoldHighlander]

Who's this "we" you speak of?
The kilt police?

Well, I haven't been on this forum that long, but I have been doing my best to read it extensively. When I typed "we" my intent was those on this forum who admire the Highland garment known as the kilt. The Confederate Memorial tartan kilt is a Highland garment. It isn't a utilikilt or one of the modern incarnations of the garment. In retrospect, I meant those of us with taste.

Okay, upon re-reading this I'm now feeling a wee bit bent!

If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I have the highest admiration for the Highland garment known as a kilt. Just because some of us don't feel insulted by those who wear the Confederate Memorial kilt with a CS uniform (in the proper venue), as you do, does not mean we don't have admiration for the Highland garment known as a kilt (or taste)!

What's that old saying about "opinions"?

[BobsYourUncle]

Unfortunately, this sort of logic is used to justify a lot of very "farby" items in personal kit in the Civil War reenacting community. While your points are technically correct, as I mentioned, in NPS living history we were taught to portray the "average" in our period; in this case, the simple question "Was the kilt an "average" garment in 19th century America, specifically the Southern states?" applies -- Ockham's razor would provide the answer: no.

And yes, whilst the South did not have the industry and manufacturing that the North did, that doesn't mean they had none at all. Southern factories did turn out everything from uniforms to copies of Northern weapons, but obviously not at the rate Northern ones did.

And finally, there were a number of Canadians who did serve in the American Civil War; the Sons of Union Veterans is actually working on a memorial to them at present.

T.

I must weigh in to support Todd and his views. As a fellow reenactor and amateur historian, and Scottish culture enthusiast, accuracy is EVERYTHING. Reenacting is an expensive and time consuming hobby. If you are not pairing it with a study of history, you are engaging in fantasy dress up and running around in the woods shouting "Bang, Bang", and in my humble opinion, wasting time and money. You can have plenty of fun running around in the woods yelling "Bang Bang" without all that expensive gear. The reenacting group in which I participate takes the history very seriously, and accuracy is required.

Some posters have essentially argued that we can't know what people wore in that era, so we are free to make it up. IMHO, that view couldn't be more wrong. You would be surprised at how much evidence is available as to what soldiers wore, what equipment they used, what daily life was like in camp and during battle, even during times that predate photography. Newspaper accounts of our valiant boys marching off to battle, newspaper descriptions of ceremonial military occasions, letters home from soldiers in the field, memoirs and personal accounts by soldiers are some of the many sources we have for what was worn and what practices were followed. To blithly conclude that it happened before we were born, so we have free license to make it all up ignores the fact that there is actually considerable evidence. I suppose that attitude is quite convenient, as it frees one from the hard, sometimes painstaking work of digging out the factual record.

Our group, which reenacts the 7th Bn Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders as they fought from 1939-1946, recently had an internal debate about whether a
certain regimental flash or patch was worn by members of the regiment during the fighting in North Africa in WWII--photographic evidence from the Regimental Museum director at Stirling Castle decided the issue. We only agreed to wear that item once evidence of its use at that time and place was established.

My view is that accuracy is vital to our effort to honor the memory of those who fought and died. We also feel that post amalgamation of the Scottish regiments, we fulfill a vital role in preserving regimental culture and history, and we can't do that without rigorous historical accuracy, othewise we are a poor joke poorly told.

Your heritage is precious to you. You add to the life of the community by honoring it and putting it on display. By all means, honor your heritage any way you see fit. But I would suggest that you would do it the most honor, and most honor your ancestors who fought and died, by researching the details of their lives, record of which does exist [you would be surprised how much evidence exists]. Nothing will bring you more satisfaction than being able to present to those who ask actual facts about how your CSA shell jacket relates to your family member's military service.

I learned of my family connection to the MacPherson Clan from letters home by ancient "Uncle Murdoch", who came to America from Scotland in 1837, which letters were stuck in the back of a mildewed family bible. He brought his sister and her husband over in 1853, from whom I am descended. Finding Uncle Murdoch's obituary in local newspaper microfilm archives told me that he assisted in running the Underground Railroad in Ithaca, New York during the Civil War. I am proud of that. Facts and details give history its spice, flavor, life. No mere fantasy can ever have the impact of the actual facts, learned from actual evidence.

Once you try history, you'll never go back...

[Slag101]

If you're talking about a Civil War era shelljacket, it's short-waisted enough that there's probably nothing special you need to do, unless you're trying to be historically "period correct" with it. If that's the case then almost everything else has to change to "properly" go with the jacket, from shirt and shoes to the kilt itself: In the mid-1860s the kilt was likely still box-pleated, as knife pleats were just beginning to be accepted as an alternative.

So, if you can, try to be a bit more specific regarding what you're trying to accomplish.

If your trying to be historically accurate, don't wear a kilt.

If you want to wear the kilt, the shell jacket/round about style will work fine, as it is short enough.

[Mike M.]

I've considered wearing a kilt with my North-South Skirmish Association uniform (I'm a member of McGregor's Battery), but we don't pretend to be a reenactment group.

[BoldHighlander]

If your trying to be historically accurate, don't wear a kilt.

If you want to wear the kilt, the shell jacket/round about style will work fine, as it is short enough.

I agree (as well as with BobsYourUncle).

The SCV ball however is a private function, and anything but a living history event (and many more who do wear the CSA uniform at the event, do so with trousers by the way).

'Nuff said, otherwise I'm just....

[GaRebel211]

I agree with the statements that in order to be "historically accurate" a Confederate jacket of any type should not be worn whilst kilted. However, just as others have stated there are no set rules on how to display ones heritage. I for one would not mix my kilt with my Confederate uniform, but that is me. I would however find sublte ways to honor both Scottish and Confederate heritage.(SCV badge,Family crest pin, etc) I adhere to a strict policy on my Confederate uniform, because lets be honest, more questions follow a person who is dressed head to toe in a "historically accurate" Confederate uniform. I have attended many living history events where people will ask you the in's and out's of the uniform and EXPECT you to know what you are portraying. Until I find hard evidence that any division or Confederate force at any point actually wore a kilt, I will remain unmixed in my heritage display. As for wearing the Confederate Memorial Tartan kilt, the most asked question I get asked is where can I get one? Those who are intrested in kilts and in Southern History get the best of both worlds. But again to the OP's original question, There are no set rules, just be advised it's not "historically accurate" and others may call you on it.

Side note- I enjoyed reading everyone's comments on this post, good points made on all sides, It's good to have a lively debate...

[SlackerDrummer]

Oh, incidentally, the local air museum had their annual ball (always with a period theme). The theme two yrs ago? WWII. Those who didn't go in period civilian dress were in military dress. There was also a few WWII vets there, all of whom were thrilled by the honour paid to them. Last years ball was the Viet Nam war, and (you guessed it) a large number of the attendees (many not even born until well after the war) wore the uniform (including some Class A's). There were also plenty of vets present.....on both occasions none felt insulted or mocked.

I wonder why? (...just maybe they recognized the intent of the organizers /participants, and in turn felt honoured by it? )

I have said in at least two of my posts in this thread: Wear the uniform and do it well. I don't find your example to be at all inconsistent with my point of view. Wearing a uniform to a themed event is fine. My suggestions were to wear a (part of a) uniform to a formal ball. I apologize for not qualifying that. And putting a kilt with a Confederate uniform is NOT wearing the uniform. Those uniforms did not include kilts.

However, just as others have stated there are no set rules on how to display ones heritage.

Not picking on you GaRebel211, you just provided the quote I needed to reference. (Thanks for participating in the conversation.)

My point is simply this: If you wear a kilt with a Confederate uniform, you are in fact NOT displaying your heritage. It wasn't done by your (collective) ancestors or mine. Where does one draw the line? On which side of the line are the lederhosen of Germany and Austria? There were certainly plenty of Germans here and fighting on both sides of war.

HERITAGE
1 : property that descends to an heir
2 a : something transmitted by or acquired from a predecessor : legacy, inheritance
b : tradition
3 : something possessed as a result of one's natural situation or birth : birthright <the nation's heritage of tolerance>

TRADITION
1 a : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)
b : a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable
2 : the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
3 : cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions
4 : characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition>

It is certainly only my opinion, but I think there are times to honor our Scots heritage and times to honor our Confederate/Federal heritage. And I think mixing the two of them up serves neither to the best of one's ability. To wear the kilt with the uniform at a reenactment I believe we can all agree is unthinkable. Why then is it okay elsewhere? Is it any less false because it isn't a living history situation? Worn in a parade, what is the message the public takes away? If one is serious about honoring one's heritage, then one must accept responsibility for being honest about it.

[macwilkin]

I think Kenneth raises an excellent point in his last post:

My point is simply this: If you wear a kilt with a Confederate uniform, you are in fact NOT displaying your heritage. It wasn't done by your (collective) ancestors or mine. Where does one draw the line? On which side of the line are the lederhosen of Germany and Austria? There were certainly plenty of Germans here and fighting on both sides of war.

Well said. Many Americans of German and Austrian heritage served in both World Wars, and in the case of the First World War, saw their heritage and traditions persecuted by "loyal" Americans at home that banned German language classes and changed sauerkraut into liberty cabbage.

This point reminded me of how some, such as the late Grady McWhiney attempted to claim Scottish & Irish heritage for only the South; his books such as "Cracker Culture" and "Attack & Die" seem to imply that there were no "Celtic" peoples fighting for the North, when in fact there were -- the Irish were second to the Germans in terms of Northern ethnic regiments, and the Scots, especially in Scotland, tended to favour the Northern cause as well. Some of my own Scottish and Ulster-Scottish ancestors settled in Iowa before the War, and loyally served their new home in non-ethnic Iowa regiments. They certainly carried their Burns with them, but they didn't see their service as a display of ethnicity per se.

That being said, I think others have raised some very valid points well in this discussion, especially Terry.

T.

[SlackerDrummer]

Or how about the recent thread about the Swinging Six (the sporran of the Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders), in paticular the masked badger version.
I was of the opinion that a civilian version was fine to wear, but leave the military version for the guys serving (or for historical reenactment purposes). In that thread one of our newer members (a current serving officer with the A&SH's) mentioned that since the amalgamation into the Royal Regt of Scotland, that the wearing of the swinging six has ceased. He encouraged the civilian wearing of the full mask badger swinging six as a way of honouring this old tradition.
Now, what am I to make of that? Should I feel concerned about making a mockery of a very proud Highland Regiment, and possibly insulting an old jock, when I have the blessing of (currently) serving member of said regiment to wear this former uniform item (once reserved for NCO's & Officers of the Argylls)?

Food for thought. Thanks, Terry. It doesn't feel the same to me, but maybe that's because it isn't personal. I'll sleep on it.