|
Post by rch on Oct 27, 2006 10:13:24 GMT -6
I've done a little reading on the subject of laundresses, but not enough.
It appaers that laundresses didn't have to be married. Barnitz mentioned that one of his men married a laundress' daughter. Enlisted men's wives did not necessarily have to be laundresses and could live on post if room was available.
The Ft lincoln contignet of laundresses must have swelled when the troops came from Ft Totten and the South. There's no indication in "Men With Custer" that any enlisted men were left at Totten, so I assume that for them at that time the change of station was considered permenent. The Ft Rice laundresses probably stayed there.
1. Does anyone know the names of the 7th Cavalry's laundresses? Were they part of any roster?
2. How were they quartered when the regiment united at Ft Lincoln?
3. I assume that a widowed laundress did not loose her position. Am I correct?
rch
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 28, 2006 5:06:10 GMT -6
Another topic I'm really glad you're looking into! I presume you've read these, and many others like them: www.fortconcho.com/laundres.htmwww.cottonbalers.lynchburg.net/laundres.htm1. I can only offer two names that I know of, off hand: the notorious Mrs. Nash, and a Mrs. Annie Curran who was a Co. I laundress at Fort Wallace in 1868. See the Langellier/Cox/Pohanka Keogh biography, p. 113, n. 79, for her; here's what it says: "When Keogh left Fort Wallace [with Co. I, transferring to Camp Alfred Gibbs near Ellis Station], he was under orders to take with him the company washer woman, Mrs. Annie Curran, and to transport her as far as the train went to Hays City. See Granville Lewis to Miles [sic] Keogh, June 6, 1868. Fort Wallace Microfilm." From this wording, it sounds as if she was the only Co. I laundress, which doesn't square with the ratios given in the sources above. However, there were also infantry posted at Wallace, and Nowlan's Co. F was, I think, still there, so perhaps there was some pooling of resources. It's slightly intriguing none the less to see such trouble taken over one humble laundress. Whether she was considered unnecessary for a company about to take the field ... or there was a full complement of laundresses already at Gibbs ... or she'd had enough and had resigned ... or she was being run out of town on a rail for misconduct -- alas, we may never know. Hard to imagine they weren't on a roster, as they had to be paid; they do seem to have been during the Civil War. Don't know if that had changed by 1876, however. 2. Good question. The existing Suds Row surely wouldn't have been big enough to house such an influx? 3. According to one of the sites above (if I remember correctly) she had to have some connection to a serving soldier. If correct, then a widowed laundress could in theory be booted off the post. (And maybe that's what was happening to Annie?) But in practice, from the anecdotes of Libbie and other wives, it would seem they seldom stayed widowed long. Apart from a) their usefulness, and b) the shortage of women for soldiers to find wives among, they c) were a very good catch for a soldier, making considerably more money than he did. So there'd be no shortage of potential suitors -- even, as in the case of Mrs. Nash, where the little matter of gender got in the way! P.S. Somewhere on here, Billy posted the Fort Wallace burial returns -- but I just cannot find them. If there's a Curran listed in early to mid 1868, that might tell us something?
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Oct 29, 2006 14:11:01 GMT -6
Elisabeth--
Was Mrs. Nash the male laundress mentioned--with great humour, I might add--in Kate Gibson's book?
Regards, LMC
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 30, 2006 2:42:11 GMT -6
That's the one! Libbie has quite a chapter about her in Boots and Saddles, too. Great story. But she/he does seem to be one of the very, very few we know anything about.
Have just thought of another we can add to the list: Missouri Ann Bobo.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Oct 30, 2006 11:24:26 GMT -6
Great websites! I especially like Fort Concho. It seems a shame, though to only give the women "one ration" when the men got two. What exactly did one day's ration consist of?
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 2, 2006 1:54:59 GMT -6
Melani, I haven't been ignoring the question -- just failing to find the answer! I thought it would be spelt out somewhere in Forty Miles a Day on Beans and Hay, but if it is, I've missed it. (It's got a little about field rations, but not, as far as I can see, specifics about garrison rations.) I've seen it somewhere, though, so I'll keep looking ...
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 2, 2006 2:23:47 GMT -6
Here's something -- from "Supplying the Frontier Military Posts", by Raymond L. Welty: "The army ration is the established daily allowance of food for one person. The ration was fixed by the army regulations as follows: Twelve ounces of pork or bacon, or canned beef (fresh or corned), or one pound and four ounces of fresh beef, or twenty-two ounces of salt beef; eighteen ounces of soft bread or flour, or sixteen ounces of hard bread, or one pound and four ounces of corn meal; and to have, every one hundred rations, fifteen pounds of pease or beans, or ten pounds of rice or hominy; ten pounds of green coffee, or eight of roasted (or roasted and ground) coffee, or two pounds of tea; fifteen pounds of sugar, four quarts of vinegar; four pounds of soap; four pounds of salt; four ounces of pepper; one pound and eight ounces of adamantine or star candles; and to troops in the field, when necessary, four pounds of yeast powder to one hundred rations of flour. This ration was so large that if the food was wholesome and supplied in full the soldier fared very well. In many cases in the permanent posts the companies were more than able to maintain their mess on the rations issued. The surplus was used to purchase extra articles for their mess, or applied to the company fund to be expended for the benefit of the company. However, in the frontier posts the common ration was salt pork, beans, hard bread and coffee. Fortunately, at most of the posts the soldier obtained a salutary change from his ration of salt pork to fresh meat by means of the chase." It's a most interesting article, well worth a read, so here's the link: www.kancoll.org/khq/1938/38_2_welty.htm
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Nov 2, 2006 22:16:13 GMT -6
Wow, great article! I'm glad they didn't make them eat hay. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by markland on Nov 4, 2006 8:38:35 GMT -6
In the book about the history of Ft. Bowie, the author (sorry, I am drawing a blank right now and can't find the book) gives a fairly complete description of laundresses and their benefits. I will find it tonight, hopefully, and see if the memory is correct.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by markland on Mar 29, 2008 15:07:46 GMT -6
Looking for a thread about Edgerly and refound this thread. The following is from the 1872 Report of the Secretary of War, p. 575. LAUNDRESSES. "The law of the 16th March, 1802, in regard to laundresses (which is still in force) says : " Women may be allowed to accompany troops as laundresses, in number not exceeding four to a company;" and the Army Regulations authorize one laundress to every nineteen, or fraction of nineteen, enlisted men. "Under the existing organization our Army is allowed upward of 1,316 laundresses, who are amply compensated for all the work they perform by the enlisted men. Besides, each one draws a daily ration, at an aggregate cost to the Government of over $100,000 per annum. Moreover, quarters and fuel are furnished them, and a large amount of transportation whenever the troops are moved. "It has often been said (and I think with a great deal of truth) that the baggage of four laundresses, with their children, generally mounts to more than that of all the enlisted men of the company; so that I think I am within the scope of reason in estimating the annual expense to the Government of the 1,316 Army laundresses at about $200,000. There is no doubt but that they are a great incumbrance to troops when changing station; and as they and their children cannot be transported with troops serving in the field, they must suffer by being left behind at posts without their husbands, when they would not generally be entitled to quarters, fuel, or rations. "In view of the limited appropriations made by Congress for barracks and quarters during the past three years, it has been found impracticable to furnish comfortable or even habitable quarters for laundresses at many posts, and they and their children have suffered in consequence. "In consideration of the facts above stated, it is believed that a material reduction, if not the entire abolition, of laundresses would be a measure of economy, expediency, and humanity. "As it would certainly be a virtual breach of faith to at once discharge those laundresses whose husbands enlisted upon the condition that their wives were to accompany them and receive the allowances of laundresses, I would respectfully recommend that no more married men be allowed to enlist in time of peace, and that, at the expiration of the terms of service of those soldiers whose wives are authorized laundresses, they only be re-enlisted in exceptional cases, such as meritorious non-commissioned officers or especially deserving private soldiers. In this manner a reduction of one-half or the whole number of laundresses could be made without injustice to any one. "In the opinion of many experienced line-officers, all the laundresses might with great advantage to the service be dispensed with, and their places supplied by each soldier doing his own washing, or by colored or white men being enlisted and adequately compensated for this especial service, or by details from the troops, which has occasionally been done in our Army, and is the universal practice in almost every European service except the English. Our soldiers are regularly detailed to cook for the companies, and in the field they wash their own clothes; so do miners, surveyors, and explorers, and they do not look upon it as any great hardship." The entire report may be downloaded from: tinyurl.com/3dzwr2Billy
|
|