Confederate "Uniform" description

[tullock]

As I have stated several times, I would love the Frederick photo to be from Sept.62, (it would certainly help my research),but there is nothing to prove that. The assumption that it is 62 merely because there are frockcoats in evidence proves groundless as there are frockcoats in photos from as late as May 64 and April 65. The Five Forks photo shows at least 3, maybe 4.Quartermaster records clearly show issues of frocks to ANV units up until the end of the war.
The haversack discussion is a sideshow. The soldier in Frederick may be wearing his low ( as in the Whitehouse Landing photo), or he may be wearing a frock. It is too blurry to tell for definite. One Antietam photo does show a frock, so they were being worn there.

 

[major bill]

There has been much debate recently as to whether the photo was taken during the Maryland campaign of 1862 or during Early's campaign in 1864.

The below was taken from Two Accounts of the Army of Northern Virginia, September 1862, by Ross Brooks, published in the Military Collector & Historian Journal Fall 1997, pg. 134. The author foot notes it as New York Tribune, 1 September 1862, repr. in New Orleans True Daily Delta, 20 September 1862, 2, col. 2.

Note this is part of a longer quote in the article. The newspaper article is about a large pile of clothing and shoes found at the Potomac River crossing (probably left by D.R Jones' Division).

Another part of the newspaper article indicates that the Confederate soldiers purchased all the available civilian clothing for miles around.

 

[tullock]

The below was taken from Two Accounts of the Army of Northern Virginia, September 1862, by Ross Brooks, published in the Military Collector & Historian Journal Fall 1997, pg. 134. The author foot notes it as New York Tribune, 1 September 1862, repr. in New Orleans True Daily Delta, 20 September 1862, 2, col. 2.

View attachment 159871

Note this is part of a longer quote in the article. The newspaper article is about a large pile of clothing and shoes found at the Potomac River crossing (probably left by D.R Jones' Division).

Another part of the newspaper article indicates that the Confederate soldiers purchased all the available civilian clothing for miles around.

Major bill. What a fascinating piece.I have never come across this info before and it certainly helps with my research.As I mentioned in an earlier post whole brigades had received fresh, identical uniforms in July and August and some units were still being issued new uniforms well into the Campaign.Regarding the above , I would steer more towards regimental quartermasters supplying the clothing more than boatmen.

 

[Package4]

As I have stated several times, I would love the Frederick photo to be from Sept.62, (it would certainly help my research),but there is nothing to prove that. The assumption that it is 62 merely because there are frockcoats in evidence proves groundless as there are frockcoats in photos from as late as May 64 and April 65. The Five Forks photo shows at least 3, maybe 4.Quartermaster records clearly show issues of frocks to ANV units up until the end of the war.
The haversack discussion is a sideshow. The soldier in Frederick may be wearing his low ( as in the Whitehouse Landing photo), or he may be wearing a frock. It is too blurry to tell for definite. One Antietam photo does show a frock, so they were being worn there.

Using your own research, the issue of frock coats to the ANV in late '63 was less than 1% and goes down significantly from there if you subtract both cav and artillery units; the picture in question appears to be solely infantry.

Blowing up the subject picture, it is apparent that more than 1% are wearing frockcoats........

I would also add that the frocks in evidence in later pictures appear to be civilian in nature. One can also look up the individual unit issues of clothing for the Army of the Valley and see that they were issued jackets with exception of a few coats to Georgia units.

 

[tullock]

Using your own research, the issue of frock coats to the ANV in late '63 was less than 1% and goes down significantly from there if you subtract both cav and artillery units; the picture in question appears to be solely infantry.

Blowing up the subject picture, it is apparent that more than 1% are wearing frockcoats........

I would also add that the frocks in evidence in later pictures appear to be civilian in nature. One can also look up the individual unit issues of clothing for the Army of the Valley and see that they were issued jackets with exception of a few coats to Georgia units.

The issue of frockcoats as well as sackcoats increased significantly in 1864 to units in the ANV. These were both depot and State issues. It is impossible to determine what type of
frocks in the Five Forks photo are, but going on the sheer volume of QM issues they were most likely military types. The frockcoat in the Whitehouse Landing photo is a military type.
The Frederick photo is hopefully 62, maybe further research will bear this out. Certainly the evidence for frocks on the Antietam battlefield, if we study the photographs, shows only one out of the dozens of upper garments discernible. In fact, in proportion, there are more frocks in the Five Forks photo, than in the Antietam set.

 

[Package4]

The issue of frockcoats as well as sackcoats increased significantly in 1864 to units in the ANV. These were both depot and State issues. It is impossible to determine what type of
frocks in the Five Forks photo are, but going on the sheer volume of QM issues they were most likely military types. The frockcoat in the Whitehouse Landing photo is a military type.
The Frederick photo is hopefully 62, maybe further research will bear this out. Certainly the evidence for frocks on the Antietam battlefield, if we study the photographs, shows only one out of the dozens of upper garments discernible. In fact, in proportion, there are more frocks in the Five Forks photo, than in the Antietam set.

So what percentage of the whole were frocks issued to ANV infantry units in 1864? I find it hard to believe that the depots made a conscious decision to save cloth and time by going to the jacket only to go back to the frock; I know that the sack coat was issued in heavy numbers to NC troops.

The Five Forks picture only shows one discernable frock coat and the possibility of two others, but they are three ranks away from the camera. The only frock for sure is the soldier standing next to the wheel or mechanics capped soldier. I just took the Library of Congress photo at highest resolution allowed by their site and then blew that up as high as possible.

 

[tullock]

Sack coats were issued in huge numbers to NC troops in early 62. The transitional NC jackets were issued from April 62 until Sept 62 at which point the plain NC shell jacket was issued. Richmond sack coats, both trimmed (Brooke jacket), and plain, were issued in large numbers,especially in 64/65.These type jackets required around 10-15% more material.There are several remaining examples. If time was of the essence in the Richmond Depot then surely they would have reduced the button configuration on its 'Depot 2/3 ' jackets from 9 to maybe 4 or 5; to save all that time sewing, but they didn't. The Columbus, Demopolis and other depots in the deep South continued to produce blue trimmed jackets until late in 64. If time or materials were a constraint they would have produced plain jackets surely?
From mid 1863 onwards, in Virginia, the Richmond Depot attempted to introduce far more uniformity into the ranks.After all, if the Confederacy wanted to be recognised as a country they needed a recognisable army and not a 'rag tag' bunch of soldiers, and so stringent efforts were put in place to attain this. This policy included fine imports and quality 'home grown' uniforms, which included frockcoats, which was what standing orders had originally envisaged. Frockcoat issues in mid to late 1864 were around 7%, whereas issues to the ANV in mid 1862, especially to South Carolina and Georgia troops, (those usually issued frocks) were virtually nil.

 

[Package4]

Sack coats were issued in huge numbers to NC troops in early 62. The transitional NC jackets were issued from April 62 until Sept 62 at which point the plain NC shell jacket was issued. Richmond sack coats, both trimmed (Brooke jacket), and plain, were issued in large numbers,especially in 64/65.These type jackets required around 10-15% more material.There are several remaining examples. If time was of the essence in the Richmond Depot then surely they would have reduced the button configuration on its 'Depot 2/3 ' jackets from 9 to maybe 4 or 5; to save all that time sewing, but they didn't. The Columbus, Demopolis and other depots in the deep South continued to produce blue trimmed jackets until late in 64. If time or materials were a constraint they would have produced plain jackets surely?
From mid 1863 onwards, in Virginia, the Richmond Depot attempted to introduce far more uniformity into the ranks.After all, if the Confederacy wanted to be recognised as a country they needed a recognisable army and not a 'rag tag' bunch of soldiers, and so stringent efforts were put in place to attain this. This policy included fine imports and quality 'home grown' uniforms, which included frockcoats, which was what standing orders had originally envisaged. Frockcoat issues in mid to late 1864 were around 7%, whereas issues to the ANV in mid 1862, especially to South Carolina and Georgia troops, (those usually issued frocks) were virtually nil.

As a help with your research, the family, Rosenstock, who is still in possession of the photograph of the Confederates in Frederick, I believe, has stated that both this picture and the one taken days later of Union cavalry, was taken in 1862.
The picture first published in 1965 in Murfin's wonderful book "The Gleam of Bayonets"; Murfin was able to interview Benjamin B. Rosenstock, grandson of the Frederick purveyor and in 1965 an attorney in Frederick. Mr. Rosenstock told Murfin that the picture was taken during the 1862 campaign.

Unfortunately the family has not let the public study the picture to attain higher resolution and detail, maybe at some juncture they will or sell it to someone who will.

 

[Package4]

Sack coats were issued in huge numbers to NC troops in early 62. The transitional NC jackets were issued from April 62 until Sept 62 at which point the plain NC shell jacket was issued. Richmond sack coats, both trimmed (Brooke jacket), and plain, were issued in large numbers,especially in 64/65.These type jackets required around 10-15% more material.There are several remaining examples. If time was of the essence in the Richmond Depot then surely they would have reduced the button configuration on its 'Depot 2/3 ' jackets from 9 to maybe 4 or 5; to save all that time sewing, but they didn't. The Columbus, Demopolis and other depots in the deep South continued to produce blue trimmed jackets until late in 64. If time or materials were a constraint they would have produced plain jackets surely?
From mid 1863 onwards, in Virginia, the Richmond Depot attempted to introduce far more uniformity into the ranks.After all, if the Confederacy wanted to be recognised as a country they needed a recognisable army and not a 'rag tag' bunch of soldiers, and so stringent efforts were put in place to attain this. This policy included fine imports and quality 'home grown' uniforms, which included frockcoats, which was what standing orders had originally envisaged. Frockcoat issues in mid to late 1864 were around 7%, whereas issues to the ANV in mid 1862, especially to South Carolina and Georgia troops, (those usually issued frocks) were virtually nil.

So if the shell was not a material saving venture (both Frederick Adolphus and Les Jensen agree that it was) why did they embark upon the shell jacket for the majority of clothing depots? Is there any proof other than supposition that the increase of frock coat production was that the Confederacy wanted to be recognized as a nation? I think that it could be that officers were finding it more difficult to obtain frocks, from private sources and that the government had more produced to fulfil the need, but that is supposition on my part.

 

[tullock]

Of course the'jacket' was a material saving measure, I didn't say it wasn't. What I did say was that if time was the essence then why stick to 9 buttons on the Richmond jackets instead of reducing the number to 4or 5?
This discussion really revolves around two topics.Firstly, was the Frederick photo taken in 1862? I merely stated that there had been recent debate on this . I,myself,have always thought 1862. So there is nothing to prove here. I have recently been in touch with both the Frederick Visitor Center and the National Museum of CW Medicine and the general consensus seems to steer towards 1862, so that is fine by me as it helps my research.
Secondly,I stated that a CW photo cannot be dated purely on the presence of frock coats, as they appear in Gettysburg (1863) photos, Whitehouse Landing (1864) photos and Five Forks (1865) photos.
On a final note, may I say that generally the QM Dept. did not issue frockcoats to Officers. Almost every Company clothing requisition form I have studied show Officers buying English gray cloth, to be made up by Regimental or private tailors.