Confederate "Uniform" description

[tullock]

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.

 

[Package4]

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.

Debate as they may, I think it clearly evident that this was not July 1864, the soldiers depicted are dressed for colder weather. The number of frock coats in lieu of the ubiquitous shell jacket, is also an indication of the date. Confederates on the march were allowed to "sling" jackets in severe weather as July 1864 would have been. Two of the soldiers, in the famous Gettysburg prisoner photograph below, have "slung" their jackets, while the individual in the center still wears his jacket.

 

[tullock]

Debate as they may, I think it clearly evident that this was not July 1864, the soldiers depicted are dressed for colder weather. The number of frock coats in lieu of the ubiquitous shell jacket, is also an indication of the date. Confederates on the march were allowed to "sling" jackets in severe weather as July 1864 would have been. Two of the soldiers, in the famous Gettysburg prisoner photograph below, have "slung" their jackets, while the individual in the center still wears his jacket.
View attachment 159357

I myself am swayed towards 62 although there are arguments for both dates.I don't think a date can be determined by studying the uniforms in the photo. Frockcoats were worn throughout the war. The 1864 Whitehorse Landing photo clearly shows frockcoats being worn.

 

[Package4]

I myself am swayed towards 62 although there are arguments for both dates.I don't think a date can be determined by studying the uniforms in the photo. Frockcoats were worn throughout the war. The 1864 Whitehorse Landing photo clearly shows frockcoats being worn.

I would suggest that they were in the minority and in the ANV, shell jackets in '64 were certainly in the majority. The picture has all of the attributes of an early war shot and the clothing certainly depicts a cooler climate than July '64.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I have never really gone for the Antietam 'ragged reb' scenario; more so now after spending years studying this subject. Many eyewitness accounts must be taken with a pinch of salt due to ignorance, misidentification or even bias. The northern press, after all, had had a field day representing Confederate soldiers as scarecrows; as a consequence that is what Northern folk expected to see. The fact is the entire ANV had been issued new uniforms in June/July/August 1862, with 'top ups' received when required. Entire brigades were dressed in identical English uniforms. Other units were issued Richmond Depot jeans uniforms. At times there may have been 'multiforms', but they were still uniforms. There may well have been soldiers in the ranks with worn shoes but many soldiers in the Federal army were battling the same issues.

I tend to think you are right on this...up to a point. The civilians around Frederick were accustomed to seeing a lot Federal soldiers in the streets and public spaces of the town, so it is natural they would make a comparison between the Yankee uniforms and the Confederate dress. That the Rebels would suffer in comparison is pretty natural as they marched into Frederick soon after the heavy fighting and marching of Second Bull Run. But that doesn't mean that the Confederate uniforms weren't perfectly adequate for their purpose.

And there was variation between the Confederate units. Steiner notes, for example, that D.H. Hill's division was better equipped and more military in appearance than Jackson's men.

 

[Package4]

I myself am swayed towards 62 although there are arguments for both dates.I don't think a date can be determined by studying the uniforms in the photo. Frockcoats were worn throughout the war. The 1864 Whitehorse Landing photo clearly shows frockcoats being worn.

I would also say that the majority of the frock coats in evidence appear to be officers and you would be hard pressed to find one frock coat in the Belle Plain pictures of '64

The Frederick picture shows no evidence of one shell jacket, indicating an early war shot.

 

[tullock]

I would also say that the majority of the frock coats in evidence appear to be officers and you would be hard pressed to find one frock coat in the Belle Plain pictures of '64

The Frederick picture shows no evidence of one shell jacket, indicating an early war shot.

As I said Ray, I am swayed towards 62, although it is hard to fully distinguish the frockcoats as many which seem to be frocks at first glance may well be shell jackets with a haversack hung to the side, thus giving the impression of a longer coat. The Whitehouse Landing photo certainly shows a plain frockcoat, indicating a private.
The Frederick photo shows another interesting clothing item which may indicate a Summer scenario. Bottom right is, what appears to be, a straw hat. Now these only tended to be worn in summer. But, that being said,I'm still in the 62 camp.

 

[Package4]

All of the soldiers that can be seen clearly, are wearing frocks and doubtful the haversack plays into the confusion as they would be worn on the left side, it is more probable that the blanket roll ends would cause confusion. The straw hat is easily explained as the stores in town were either broken into or soldiers bought supplies with Confederate scrip. The hat that appears to be straw is very new looking and not what one would expect from a very long campaign march.

 

[Package4]

I also believe that based on the direction that the soldiers are marching along East Patrick Street, that they are heading towards Sharpsburg and away from Monocacy, unless they were to counter march.

 

[tullock]

As the photo is blurred even the clearer soldiers are slightly out of focus, so it is impossible to determine their dress exactly. Haversacks (and blanket rolls) were worn on both sides; numerous photos bear this out. Frockcoats were issued, albeit in lesser quantities than jackets, right up until the end of the war, dozens of clothing requisition forms from 1864 show this. The famous photo of prisoners captured at Five Forks clearly shows at least one soldier wearing a frock. He is in the middle of the three bright canteens.
The Confederate regiments who participated in the Antietam campaign which had been issued frockcoats in late 61 or early 62, mainly Georgia, South Carolina and Louisiana units,had mainly been re-supplied with short jackets in June, July and August 62. Even so, there were still some frocks in the ranks, but they were a small percentage of the whole.
As I am working on an Antietam uniform project at the moment, nothing would give me greater pleasure than proof that this photo was from September 62.

 

[tullock]

There have been some fascinating discussions regarding this photo on the AC site over the last ten years. Every aspect has been covered repeatedly, uniforms, rainfall, temperature, direction of march etc., and there still doesn't seem to a general consensus of opinion.

 

[Package4]

We were going to recreate the photo last year, but the town got scared of the fallout it might create and cancelled; a shame considering the town's ACW history.

 

[Package4]

As the photo is blurred even the clearer soldiers are slightly out of focus, so it is impossible to determine their dress exactly. Haversacks (and blanket rolls) were worn on both sides; numerous photos bear this out. Frockcoats were issued, albeit in lesser quantities than jackets, right up until the end of the war, dozens of clothing requisition forms from 1864 show this. The famous photo of prisoners captured at Five Forks clearly shows at least one soldier wearing a frock. He is in the middle of the three bright canteens.
The Confederate regiments who participated in the Antietam campaign which had been issued frockcoats in late 61 or early 62, mainly Georgia, South Carolina and Louisiana units,had mainly been re-supplied with short jackets in June, July and August 62. Even so, there were still some frocks in the ranks, but they were a small percentage of the whole.
As I am working on an Antietam uniform project at the moment, nothing would give me greater pleasure than proof that this photo was from September 62.

Very rare for a unit on the march to have soldiers with haversacks covering their cartridge boxes, most pic of right side haversack wear are unarmed Confederates usually prisoners. Blanket rolls were normally over the left shoulder allowing the soldier to be able to fire more freely, but there is evidence, even in the subject photo, of soldiers wearing the roll over the right shoulder. Speculation was that a small roll might lessen the bruising from recoil or simply a small roll didn't bother the soldier. A large roll gets in the way and needs to be constantly pushed out of the way. Also the soldier might be comfortable marching that way and shifted before going into battle. I have yet to find a description of this in accounts.

 

[tullock]

Is that not his cartridge box over his 'haversack'?

 

[Package4]

To whom do you refer? Haversacks were generally worn where they were easy to get to for purposes of eating and smoking while on the move, it would have been rare to see a cartridge box over a haversack, not saying it didn't happen, but seldom.

I have seen reenactors start kitting out and forget which side the haversack and canteen go and just say the heck with it and I'm sure it happened during the ACW, but the more gear on the right side interfered with fighting and that could mean the difference between life and death.

 

[Package4]

Is that not his cartridge box over his 'haversack'?

If you are referring to the soldier below, his cartridge box appears to be on his belt and the haversack is off his right shoulder and wedged between the blanket roll and box, but it is on the left (rear) side. Unlike what one sees at reenactments, most haversacks rode fairly high on the hip and not hanging way down below the buttocks, this enabled easy access to the sack and also avoided the haversack banging the rear of the left leg, which becomes very fatiguing during a long march.

 

[ikesdad]

And then there's those guys standing looking at that clothing store. Hmmm.

 

[tullock]

Just taken another look at the Five Forks photo (the sepia version on this forum). Besides the several frockcoats on view, several prisoners have their haversacks hung quite low. Look at the man in the mechanics cap and the one next to him.It's the same with the Whitehouse Landing photo,haversacks hung low on many of the prisoners.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, nothing can be taken for granted. The soldiers in the Frederick photo may or may not be wearing frocks, if they are that in itself doesn't prove anything, as they were worn right up until the end of the war. I would like to see a much clearer version before I come to any conclusion.

 

[Package4]

Just taken another look at the Five Forks photo (the sepia version on this forum). Besides the several frockcoats on view, several prisoners have their haversacks hung quite low. Look at the man in the mechanics cap and the one next to him.It's the same with the Whitehouse Landing photo,haversacks hung low on many of the prisoners.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, nothing can be taken for granted. The soldiers in the Frederick photo may or may not be wearing frocks, if they are that in itself doesn't prove anything, as they were worn right up until the end of the war. I would like to see a much clearer version before I come to any conclusion.

Generally the haversack was high on the hip (opening) and the strap was cinched so that the soldier would be able to reach into the sack and hit the bottom of the bag without having to grab the strap and raise it.

I have 15 original ACW haversacks, most identified and all have very short straps which would have put the opening high on the hip of a 5'8" soldier. I am 6' 2" and they ride right under my armpit. When I get time I'll start to post pictures of the haversacks. The Five Forks pictures show the two soldiers with what I would consider a medium hang with very large haversacks, there is only one frock in evidence, the other that looks like a frock is actually a ground cloth folded and inserted inside of the belt in the rear of the soldier under his huge knapsack.

Soldiers not under arms many times would sling their haversack on the right side, being right handed it was easier to gain access.

 

[mofederal]

That makes sense on the haversacks, because they ride pretty good closer to the armpit. It never made sense riding low, and you have knot up the strap. The access to the bag and the bottom of it makes sense too, you just never see it in a repro bag. Thank you for the information.