Re: MtMan-List: underwear

["Barry Conner" <buck.conner@worldnet.att.net>]

I have read articles when the Buckskin Report (John Baird - fur trade) was
still available, along with articles by Charles E.Hanson, Jr.(Museum of the
Fur Trade - fur trade), Vernon L. Bigsby (Valley Forge Museum - pre Rev.
War) and one from Colorado Historical Society (1849'ers and into the Civil
War), will have to look for exact information and get back to you. But all
of the articles mentioned were about period male under garments.

As I remember their were no one piece "union" suits as seen at outing today,
the pre Rev War garments were like night shirts split front and back to slid
down the breeches, the fur trade depending on early or late were: night
shirt style - early being split or solid (solid being shirt tail pulled
between legs to the front and front being tucked to the rear) seems to be a
good load in the seat of one's pants? The late garments were straight leg
bloomer style with a long tailed shirt - no collar.

Hanson felt that they, (the under garment) may have lasted the first winter
and were used for repair of other garments afterwards. He felt that this was
an item found not that serviceable in the field, as you would need to almost
get undressed if nature called, not like the "union" suit found a decade or
two later with its back and front access.

I'm sure others will have additional information from their research and I
will look for those articles, have a 4 drawer file cabinet with information
collected for 40 years.

Buck

-----Original Message-----
From: TrapRJoe@aol.com <TrapRJoe@aol.com>
To: hist_text@lists.xmission.com <hist_text@lists.xmission.com>
Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: underwear


>Interested in your coments on underwear.  There are detailed discriptions
of
>male underwear even in the Bible, so no dout the males had underwear.  But
>there are many  ladies at our rendezvous.  In reality they wouldn't have
been
>there at all in 1830, but they are here now.  What about our, their
underwear.
>
>