How to Make Hardtack...

[jgoodguy]

My objection to steam cooking is the specs is ' hand work will not do'.

Here is a modern machine.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

The Cincinnati Steam Bakery that Supplied Civil War Hard Tack

Charles H Bennett’s Bakery at 89 Court Street in Cincinnati ca. 1880. During the Civil War hard tack, or hard flour crackers, were the most consistent ration for soldiers. Most got 9 or 10 …

dannwoellertthefoodetymologist.wordpress.com

But who made all this hard tack for the many tens of thousands of soldiers who gave their lives to fight for the Union? Well, one major supplier was right here in Cincinnati, the Charles H. Bennett Steam Bakery, which during the Civil War was at 89 Court Street, near Vine Street, facing the old Court Street Market House. They had incorporated in the mid 1840s, and were bought out before the Civil War by a partner, John Littleford, who operated the bakery until his retirement in 1893. He brought in automated machinery to replace the time consuming hand molding of crackers

Amazingly the building is still there and I have passed by it many times w/o having a clue of it's history.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/8...0fe396f49f4826!8m2!3d39.1062258!4d-84.5126354

Go north above Central Parkway and you will be in Over-the-Rhine, the historic German district. Central Parkway was once a part of the Miami-Erie canal system and the world's largest unused subway is underneath.

https://overtherhine.wordpress.com/...ory-of-cincinnatis-central-parkway-in-images/

 

[byron ed]

Where does this information on steam-baking leave us? It appears to have been a method necessary to reproduce hardtack authentically.

Can (will) we refrain from claiming our home kitchen recipes are close to authentic? ...or will we more honestly point that our recipes aren't particularly authentic -- that our kitchen homemades tend to result in a product too d----- hard compared to the real thing as it was actually issued.

I'm a realist, so I expect to see the same thing at demonstrations that I always have ...and to continue to hear all the clever little stories about out-of-date, spoiled or infested hardtack. The public and the kids will continue thinking that hardtack was some kind of bureaucratic ruse inflicted on U.S. soldiers.

Still, there are more seriously incorrect things about the CW being told, Lost Cause for example, or that women were often enlisted as soldiers, or that black soldiers commonly filled the ranks of the Confederacy.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Where does this information on steam-baking leave us? It appears to have been a method necessary to reproduce hardtack authentically.

Can (will) we refrain from claiming our home kitchen recipes are close to authentic? ...or will we more honestly point that our recipes aren't particularly authentic -- that our kitchen homemades tend to result in a product too d----- hard compared to the real thing as it was actually issued.

I'm a realist, so I expect to see the same thing at demonstrations that I always have ...and to continue to hear all the clever little stories about out-of-date, spoiled or infested hardtack. The public and the kids will continue thinking that hardtack was some kind of bureaucratic ruse inflicted on U.S. soldiers.

Still, there are more seriously incorrect things about the CW being told, Lost Cause for example, or that women were often enlisted as soldiers, or that black soldiers commonly filled the ranks of the Confederacy.

Ack!!! Let it go.

 

[diane]

Ack!!! Let it go.

5fish has! He's the OP.

 

[byron ed]

Ack!!! Let it go

A Civil War forum is exactly the place to obsess over a detail like this -- there being no downside to it whatsoever. A minor truth found is a minor untruth replaced.

Besides which, there's trivia learned here difficult to find anywhere else.

We are Civil War Mavens, that's what brings us to this forum. There's nothing to be concerned about in that.

That is, unless in "King of History" mode, where virtually anything other than, or in the slightest way seeming alternative to, the history that we'd locked in at some point, is somehow a personal slight. Silly.

 

[jgoodguy]

A Civil War forum is exactly the place to obsess over a detail like this -- there being no downside to it whatsoever. A minor truth found is a minor untruth replaced.

Besides which, there's trivia learned here difficult to find anywhere else.

We are Civil War Mavens, that's what brings us to this forum. There's nothing to be concerned about in that.

That is, unless in "King of History" mode, where virtually anything other than, or in the slightest way seeming alternative to, the history that we'd locked in at some point, is somehow a personal slight. Silly.

Blogging, participation in a forum, electronic communication, gas, and electric household appliances, carrying the raw materials in anything except horse-powered transportation is as they say farby.

 

[byron ed]

Blogging, participation in a forum, electronic communication, gas, and electric household appliances, carrying the raw materials in anything except horse-powered transportation is as they say farby.

Fun to suggest, but no. There has only ever been one "they" associated with the word farby: Reenactors.

"Farby" is a reenactor slang term depicting an attempted historical practice or use of gear that is thought not to be authentic. That's it.

For instance in context of Gulf War-era reenacting (still in its infancy) nothing from that list is farby except blogging. In context of Vietnam-era, WW2-era or even WW1-era reenacting the only farby things from the list are electronic communication and blogging.

Even in context of Civil War-era reenacting, neither gas or the carrying of raw materials via something other that horse-powered transportation are in any way considered farby (gas lamps and steam ships and trains are recognized by reenactors to be fully authentic for the period).

 

[Jim Klag]

Fun to suggest, but no. There has only ever been one "they" associated with the word farby: Reenactors.

"Farby" is a reenactor slang term depicting an attempted historical practice or use of gear that is thought not to be authentic. That's it.

For instance in context of Gulf War-era reenacting (still in its infancy) nothing from that list is farby except blogging. In context of Vietnam-era, WW2-era or even WW1-era reenacting the only farby things from the list are electronic communication and blogging.

I'll give you credit for one thing. You may be a boring pedant, but you are at least a tireless boring pedant.

 

[byron ed]

I'll give you credit for one thing. You may be a boring pedant, but you are at least a tireless boring pedant.

yet somehow not boring enough to belay your consistently rapt attention. You're welcome.

 

[rittmeister]

yet apparently not boring enough to miss your consistently rapt attention, meh.

ever considered the idea that staff might be required to read everything?

 

[byron ed]

ever considered the idea that staff is required to read everything?

yet no requirement for staff to join the thread conversation

 

[rittmeister]

yet no requirement for staff to join the thread conversation

maybe he's a bit juvenile at times

 

[Jim Klag]

maybe he's a bit juvenile at times

Moi?

 

[Jim Klag]

You're welcome

For what?

 

[jgoodguy]

Fun to suggest, but no. There has only ever been one "they" associated with the word farby: Reenactors.

"Farby" is a reenactor slang term depicting an attempted historical practice or use of gear that is thought not to be authentic. That's it.

For instance in context of Gulf War-era reenacting (still in its infancy) nothing from that list is farby except blogging. In context of Vietnam-era, WW2-era or even WW1-era reenacting the only farby things from the list are electronic communication and blogging.

Even in context of Civil War-era reenacting, neither gas or the carrying of raw materials via something other that horse-powered transportation are in any way considered farby (gas lamps and steam ships and trains are recognized by reenactors to be fully authentic for the period).

Hardcore reenactors consider many things like tents as inauthentic. However, reenacting is and of itself inauthentic. Therefore using reenacting as a standard is ahistorical. I suggest that outside of pens with real pen nibs, ink and unlined paper communication is ahistorical.

 

[byron ed]

maybe he's a bit juvenile at times

I won't cast aspersions on him.

 

[byron ed]

For what?

for providing material that, apparently, is fascinating enough that you're consistently compelled to weigh in on it.

(You know, we've been specifically asked to skip the personal pronouns, let's get back on track there).

 

[byron ed]

Hardcore reenactors consider many things like tents as inauthentic.

No they don't, not even for biblical reenacting. No reenactor would ever come up with that. Tentage was common even from biblical times.

However, reenacting is and of itself inauthentic.

Except for farbs, the intention is to be as authentic as conditions allow. But ok, if you must take the "King of History" approach, sure enough reenacting will never be fully authentic. What is the significance of that to anything?

Therefore using re,enacting as a standard is ahistorical.

I'm tempted to bring up "Captain Obvious"* here. Of course using reenacting itself, rather that verified history as the standard, is farby, it's ahistorical.

I suggest that outside of pens with real pen nibs, ink and unlined paper communication is ahistorical.

and yet -- outside of pens there were pencils, lined paper and typeset printing -- all verifiably historical and in common use for the Civil War period.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* I'm at times amazed at what comes up here seemingly for no other reason than to "win" a conversation, as if this CW forum must mimic that "other" CW forum.

 

[jgoodguy]

No they don't, not even for biblical reenacting. No reenactor would ever come up with that. Tentage was common even from biblical times.



Except for farbs, the intention is to be as authentic as conditions allow. But ok, if you must take the "King of History" approach, sure enough reenacting will never be fully authentic. What is the significance of that to anything?



I'm tempted to bring up "Captain Obvious"* here. Of course using reenacting itself, rather that verified history as the standard, is farby, it's ahistorical.



and yet -- outside of pens there were pencils, lined paper and typeset printing -- all verifiably historical and in common use for the Civil War period.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* I'm at times amazed at what comes up here seemingly for no other reason than to "win" a conversation, as if this CW forum must mimic that "other" CW forum.

I'll accept the pencils and lined paper if and only if you hand-deliver it and walk from the place of writing, though horseback is OK.