Question About Confederate Hats

View attachment 27785 I'm puzzled by a style of hat I see in lots and lots of ACW photos, but have never seen on a reenactor. It looks like a Smokey Bear hat, but twice as big, in that it seems twice as big as the man's head. What's that hat called? They look totally weird. Guy on the left.

Maybe i'm weird, but i always fancied that image for many reasons...

Three sharp-looking/dressed dudes, stripped of their arms but not their pride.

The Hardee-pattern cover is the one that makes me shudder... but i do love digging the accompanying Jeff Davis pins!

image-1.jpg
 
Dixierifles The photo you have taken is very nice. I would question the period of items as they are probably an assemblage and did not come together as a group. I think the jacket is probably post war UCV by the cut and number of buttons. The Stuart sword hanger seems a little odd for the group too. There is also a lot of controversy over the authenticity of the CS oval plates. This thread is about the hat however, to me it appears to be war year correct. In my opinion it would be considered what is called a "sugar loaf". In the period sugar was sold in cone shapes and called loaves. A piece of it was broken of with nippers when needed. This style of hat was generally taller than the beehive. It appears to have been crushed into the crown over the years.

Though I have never owned a Bender or Clearwater hat I do know they make some really nice ones! If I had to choose I would pick an Arabia from Bender and a Mosby from Clearwater, but that is my personal choice!
 
I looked for a photo of my figure. But instead I found this photo of a uniform. It is supposed to be authentic.

What would you call this hat? It seems to be taller than a Beehive.

View attachment 27817
The only items that appear original to the ACW period are the belt and sash, the hat appears to be SpanAm, the tunic UCV, the buckle a repro and the saber attachment post war. The hat cord is also a repro.
 
The only items that appear original to the ACW period are the belt and sash, the hat appears to be SpanAm, the tunic UCV, the buckle a repro and the saber attachment post war. The hat cord is also a repro.

I agree with you for the most part. Actually the sword hanger is prewar Pattened by JEB Stuart in 1859. Also the campaign hat of the Span Am war would have had a wider brim and looked more like a modern cowboy hat. I think the cap pouch is French and pre war as well circa 1859/60.
 
Just curious after browsing the excellent posts here on beehive, sugarloaf, slouch, hardee, and campaign hats... where does the venerable ole Pork Pie fit in... and what are its distinguishing characteristics?
 
Last edited:
Val Giles deserves an award for his private-purchase cover as well... and even acknowledged its goofy nature despite becoming quite attached to it and (somewhat bitterly) mourning its loss.


View attachment 100473
The Taylor brothers of Co. E, Lone Star Guards, 4th Texas Infantry also went to war in similar hats.

Privates Emzy Taylor (left) and G. M. Taylor.
Expired Image Removed
 
Dixierifles The photo you have taken is very nice. I would question the period of items as they are probably an assemblage and did not come together as a group. I think the jacket is probably post war UCV by the cut and number of buttons. The Stuart sword hanger seems a little odd for the group too. There is also a lot of controversy over the authenticity of the CS oval plates. This thread is about the hat however, to me it appears to be war year correct. In my opinion it would be considered what is called a "sugar loaf". In the period sugar was sold in cone shapes and called loaves. A piece of it was broken of with nippers when needed. This style of hat was generally taller than the beehive. It appears to have been crushed into the crown over the years.

I took that at some small museum---maybe the one in Andersonville (not the NPS Interpretive Center). It looks sharp but I wondered if it was authentic. I recall that museum had a couple of dressed figures and a couple of battle flags which I really had my doubts about their complete authenticity.
 
I took that at some small museum---maybe the one in Andersonville (not the NPS Interpretive Center). It looks sharp but I wondered if it was authentic. I recall that museum had a couple of dressed figures and a couple of battle flags which I really had my doubts about their complete authenticity.

When I was young we vacationed nany a battlefield and museum. My experience back then was that the small private museums were more of a tourist trap than anything. A collection of old stuff of many eras with a few Civil war relics sprinkled within. The worst I remember was a place in Chattanooga, Tn called "Confederama". The focal point of the museum was an old hand painted miniatures diorama with lead soldiers painted in the 1960s. It was covered in so much dust one couldn't determine Union from Confederate! It only cost a few bucks to get back in then but I could have found something else to spend money on. The main idea if a lot of these private museums is to draw you in and separate you from your cash! My rule of thumb is if the gift shop is bigger than the museum I pass!
 
I agree with you for the most part. Actually the sword hanger is prewar Pattened by JEB Stuart in 1859. Also the campaign hat of the Span Am war would have had a wider brim and looked more like a modern cowboy hat. I think the cap pouch is French and pre war as well circa 1859/60.
I respectfully disagree:
  • The sword hanger shows no evidence of the spring loaded cross bar evident in all 1859's, though it could be a transitional piece of the 1870's, it does have the length of clip of the 1859. The 1859 would show the indentation of the cross bar on the belt, there is no evidence of that.
  • The Span Am Campaign hat is almost identical to the one pictured, I collect headgear, though it does appear as if it may be of finer felt. See pics of original Span Am headgear
 

Attachments

  • span am hat.jpg
    span am hat.jpg
    38.1 KB · Views: 427
  • span am hat 3.jpg
    span am hat 3.jpg
    4.8 KB · Views: 223
  • span am hat2.jpg
    span am hat2.jpg
    3.2 KB · Views: 245
There are other examples of these hats in private collections and as more information comes to light, it becomes apparent that the ANV was rather well supplied as late as Petersburg.
Actually, one must remember that in the last year, lee's army was defending it's base of operations and in many ways was better supplied than it had been in its glory years. a summer campaign involving much travel is hard on gear. One of the reasons for Gettysburg- Heth was going for supplies, shoes in particular IIRC. After G'burg when Longstreets boys were sent west, they (some of the Texas Brig. anyway) were given a fresh uniform issue of a charcoal grey color. Rather dark. That fetched them some grief at Chickamauga from some Florida troops who figured any troop wearing regularl dark uniforms just HAD to be Yankees and let fly on them... I do not remember where I read it but, the quartermaster returns for the quarter of Oct.1864-Jan 1865 showed an issue of 110,000 jackets to Lee's army. Of course, he had nothing like that many men. But the Confederate soldier was particularly notorious for tossing anything he didn't want to wear or carry on the march. The key here is that they had the uniform jackets to issue. Of weapons and ammunition there was still plenty right to the last. The problem in the last months and weeks was that the loss of horses, mules and wagons, rail system torn to heck and the cavalry so broken down there was little it could do to deter Yankee raiders made it nearly impossible to get the goods to the guys that needed them.
Of course food and medicines where sorely lacking and suffered the same problems of preservation and distribution of what they did have.
"The valiant lead the bold charge with this battle cry upon his lips... Charge 'em boys, they've got cheese in their haversacks!!"
 
Actually, one must remember that in the last year, lee's army was defending it's base of operations and in many ways was better supplied than it had been in its glory years. a summer campaign involving much travel is hard on gear. One of the reasons for Gettysburg- Heth was going for supplies, shoes in particular IIRC. After G'burg when Longstreets boys were sent west, they (some of the Texas Brig. anyway) were given a fresh uniform issue of a charcoal grey color. Rather dark. That fetched them some grief at Chickamauga from some Florida troops who figured any troop wearing regularl dark uniforms just HAD to be Yankees and let fly on them... I do not remember where I read it but, the quartermaster returns for the quarter of Oct.1864-Jan 1865 showed an issue of 110,000 jackets to Lee's army. Of course, he had nothing like that many men. But the Confederate soldier was particularly notorious for tossing anything he didn't want to wear or carry on the march. The key here is that they had the uniform jackets to issue. Of weapons and ammunition there was still plenty right to the last. The problem in the last months and weeks was that the loss of horses, mules and wagons, rail system torn to heck and the cavalry so broken down there was little it could do to deter Yankee raiders made it nearly impossible to get the goods to the guys that needed them.
Of course food and medicines where sorely lacking and suffered the same problems of preservation and distribution of what they did have.
"The valiant lead the bold charge with this battle cry upon his lips... Charge 'em boys, they've got cheese in their haversacks!!"
Actually the main military supply line was from Wilmington, NC., where rifles, rifled muskets, powder, ball, uniform and cloth were all coming in from England, via many routes, of course this all ended in Jan '65. Food and grain were the main issues for the ANV. Many states such as NC and GA had more than enough uniform pieces, so many in fact, that the surplus after the war, was used as prison attire, if they weren't burned, in depot fires, set by Sherman's Cavalry. Both governors though preferred to hold their surplus for state troops, an area where states rights worked against the Confederacy.
 
Actually, one must remember that in the last year, lee's army was defending it's base of operations and in many ways was better supplied than it had been in its glory years. a summer campaign involving much travel is hard on gear. One of the reasons for Gettysburg- Heth was going for supplies, shoes in particular IIRC. After G'burg when Longstreets boys were sent west, they (some of the Texas Brig. anyway) were given a fresh uniform issue of a charcoal grey color. Rather dark. That fetched them some grief at Chickamauga from some Florida troops who figured any troop wearing regularl dark uniforms just HAD to be Yankees and let fly on them... I do not remember where I read it but, the quartermaster returns for the quarter of Oct.1864-Jan 1865 showed an issue of 110,000 jackets to Lee's army. Of course, he had nothing like that many men. But the Confederate soldier was particularly notorious for tossing anything he didn't want to wear or carry on the march. The key here is that they had the uniform jackets to issue. Of weapons and ammunition there was still plenty right to the last. The problem in the last months and weeks was that the loss of horses, mules and wagons, rail system torn to heck and the cavalry so broken down there was little it could do to deter Yankee raiders made it nearly impossible to get the goods to the guys that needed them.
Of course food and medicines where sorely lacking and suffered the same problems of preservation and distribution of what they did have.
"The valiant lead the bold charge with this battle cry upon his lips... Charge 'em boys, they've got cheese in their haversacks!!"

Rather than look up the many authors who refute the "shoe myth", I'll just quote the Civil War Trust:

"Myth # 1: The Battle of Gettysburg was fought over shoes.


There was no mention of shoes having anything to do with the Battle of Gettysburg until 14 years after it happened. In 1877, Confederate General Henry Heth wrote, “Hearing that a supply of shoes was to be obtained in Gettysburg, eight miles distant from Cashtown, and greatly needing shoes for my men, I directed General Pettigrew to go to Gettysburg and get these supplies.” Problem is, there were no shoe factories anywhere near Gettysburg in 1863. Rather, roads took the armies to Gettysburg. It was difficult to travel through south-central Pennsylvania without passing through Gettysburg."

The battle of Gettysburg is the most written about action of the Civil War, both in modern time and by those who fought it, for the first mention of shoes to be 14 years after the battle leads to the safe assumption that the crossroads of Gettysburg was the real reason for the battle. There is no doubt that stores of all nature were broken into and liberated of their wares, there are even accounts of Confederate soldiers donning women's frocks and headwear, albeit briefly, no doubt liberated liquor supplies came into play.
 
View attachment 27785 I'm puzzled by a style of hat I see in lots and lots of ACW photos, but have never seen on a reenactor. It looks like a Smokey Bear hat, but twice as big, in that it seems twice as big as the man's head. What's that hat called? They look totally weird. Guy on the left.
What really stands out to me about this picture is how well accoutered they are and the soldier on the right has a haversack that is almost to his knees, of course this could be loot from the day one fight. All three have knapsacks; the soldier in the middle has a US pack, while his pards have English or Confederate issue (maybe the one on the right has a double bag, it's impossible to see). You can see this by the buckles on the shoulder straps. Notice how full the two visible haversacks are, at least one has a federal canteen and possibly all three, again hard to tell. All three will be liberated of their federal gear along the way as was policy for Federal POW camps.
 
I quite agree with "Package4"'s response to my earlier comment about Heth's going to Gettysburg for shoes. I made that comment some years ago and have since accepted the error in it. Heth may have been sent on a general supply run and had shoes on his mind when he made the comment or he may have been sent to secure the cross roads. That would make much more sence but, that statement is also unsupported, at least as far as I'm aware.
Annnyway.... Back to the "beehive" hat.
I personally disagree with the notion that "beehive" is just a generalized term for a "slouch hat." A generalized term for a generalized term just really doesn't make any sense. I consider the "slouch hat" to be any low crowned generally wide brimmed hat and as such may include "beehive hats." However, "beehive" is a specific name for a specific type of hat. That being, a wide brimmed hat with a low round crown that comes to a rounded point on top and is named for the type of beehive which it resembles.
<copyright image deleted>

This photo makes the difference clear... All three are wearing "slouch hats" but, only the man on the right has a hat that can be called a "beehive."
CSA POWs Gettysburg cropped.jpg


Some here have made reference to the "campaign hat" nowadays better known as the "drill sgt. hat." That is simply the military version of the "Montana Peak hat." It was introduced in the first years of the 20th century and adopted by the US military in 1911 putting it much later than the Civil War. Think park rangers or "Smokey Bear."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top