Edged Wpns CSA Sword

vmicraig

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 12, 2018
Location
Midlothian, VA
While I have a fairly amateur knowledge of rifles, muskets and carbines, I admit my weakness when it comes to swords. Worse than that, I don't own ANY reference materials for swords, just firearms. As such, was hoping to share this with you all and figure out what exactly this is.

The sword belongs to an acquaintance of mine who just happened to stop by and see my ACW themed man-cave. After seeing my collection, he told me he found an old sword in his grandfather's attic when they cleaned out the home. He had no idea what it was and asked if I'd look at it. Imagine my surprise when he showed it to me! Pretty ratted out, but I just have to believe it's authentic, since the household was in the family's hands for the last 100+ years. Family home is in southern AL near Mobile.

Take a look at the photos and help me tell him what he has....just too bad the condition isn't any better.

7VcHsj8nR9u2sdHEvdLZGg.jpg




LVp2KFpTQ1ezOokdabY8YQ.jpg


YjVF0H5KRr6qYrKa+RhJhw.jpg






pey92%1WQ8ipFcvRndEong.jpg


KkEAVTG2Rm6XWFNvY3MPOw.jpg


FLSk%%h7R9meo+WZEZetew.jpg


7aqi%NjoSKO26ShzJo+4Yg.jpg


MNnk3pf2RuiJFOwYw5%JSA.jpg


dFMmvbyqRWeMpuIa4WDEFA.jpg


IIdkCIOyTASHssdl6V4Tfw.jpg


BLP65ifdQvCEOpmxiWyufA.jpg


YjVF0H5KRr6qYrKa+RhJhw.jpg


7VcHsj8nR9u2sdHEvdLZGg.jpg


RiYBw2iCReWf5u4ViNLNmA.jpg
 
Looks like a Nashville Plow Works cavalry sword and it should have Nashville Plow Works on the top above CSA. Nice piece if original as this is one of the most repoped CS swords.
 
Looks like a Nashville Plow Works cavalry sword and it should have Nashville Plow Works on the top above CSA. Nice piece if original as this is one of the most repoped CS swords.
My guess is that it's original, considering nobody in their right mind would repro a sword in that condition. I looked at some NPW swords on College Hill Arsenal's website and it appears they run their script farther along the hilt than on this particular one, so perhaps an alternate company?
 
Looking at the pics below to compare to an original Nashville Plow Works. Not the same. Wish I could make out the writing on pic #4 on the blade side of the guard (is the correct term quillion?)

7VcHsj8nR9u2sdHEvdLZGg.jpg


Nashville_Marks.JPG
 
Last edited:
My guess is that it's original, considering nobody in their right mind would repro a sword in that condition. I looked at some NPW swords on College Hill Arsenal's website and it appears they run their script farther along the hilt than on this particular one, so perhaps an alternate company?
Nope, only one company made this sword. Ive seen repops that were in worse condition but I'm not saying one way or the other.
 
Pretty ratted out
If original??? its not ratted out but a beautiful piece of CSA art. The patina is what makes me say repop, even if found in a house it should have a pleasing brass patina.
 
That would be the Sharp and Hamilton version which is still considered a NPW sword. The history of the plow works is an interesting one. See the CH input. I would love to see a close up of the top NPW markings.
 
I couldn't find any matching Sharp and Hamilton designs to this example, only College Hill. Ran through dozens of images, though, thinking it was NPW ( or as you suggested, S&H), when I found this. I think it confirms it's indeed a CHA example.

Although there were dozens of arsenals that produced sabers for the Confederate States of America (CSA), only 2 arsenals produced this specific "style" of saber during the Civil War - College Hill Arsenal (CHA) and Nashville Plow Works (NPW). Interestingly, CHA examples are scarcer than NPW examples.

The arsenal was owned and run by L.T. Cunningham of Nashville, TN. Cunningham was an early participant in the Confederate arms drive, offering his services to the Secretary of War as early as June 29th and receiving an advance to establish an arsenal on College Hill in Nashville, Tennessee. While Cunningham was making arms, his products were sold to the state, the Government and to private individuals. all types of swords and sabers were manufactured on a large scale. Their cavalry sabers were a direct copy of those made by their competitor, the NPW, but without the inclusion of the firm's name on the underside if the guard and with the metal instead of brass backstraps.

Believed active only for those 2 years, the CHA stopped producing arms in 1862 when federal forces captured the city. There is no record of him re-establishing himself outside the city which left a very narrow window for Cunningham to produce these swords.

The CHA cavalry saber is noted for its resemblance to a saber produced by the NPW and remains distinct from the U.S. regulation 1840 and 1860 cavalry sabers that many Confederate sword firms chose to flatter via imitation.

A peculiarity of the foot, field and staff officer's blades is that the cutting edge does not extend the full length. Instead, it begins abruptly about three-quarters of an inch from the guard, much as do those on present day penknives. Another peculiarity usually found is an unornamented pommel with the knucklebow junction at its bottom rather than the midway. This has the effect of giving the pommel quite a "high" appearance. All blades have unstopped fullers and when etched, such decorations are usually confined to the fuller and often extends the entire length. Evidently Cunningham performed much of the firm's etching and is quite distinctive. His etching sometimes includes the form of a monster and more often than not, the letters "C.S.A." and a Confederate Sword and Bars flag. Some swords are to be found with "C.L. Cunningham, Nashville" include in the blade etching, but so small as not to be seen without the aid of a magnifying glass. It was produced with an iron backstrap/pommel cap and had brass wire wrapped around a leather grip. The scabbard was iron with brass scabbard rings and iron suspension rings.
 
Here's the write-up for NPW. Not to get in an argument about it...but learning something new with every keystroke

Nashville Plow Works (Sharp & Hamilton) Nashville, Tennessee

"Possibly because of the so obviously reversal of the biblical injunction of turning "swords into plowshares", the sabres of the Nashville Plow Works have long been treasured by collectors. The distinctive hilts (on most) also identify the firm and include the letters "CSA" in large block letters. The fine journal of the Tennessee Gun Collectors Association recently published the fact that the firm was located on the west side of eighth Avenue South, just north of the overhead railroad bridge. (Ross Calvert, descendant of the Hamilton side of Sharp & Hamilton). Here from the war's beginning until Nashville fell to the Federals on April 1,1862, were manufactured a large but undetermined number of swords. Some cavalry sabres with crude brass strap knuckleguards have been uncovered whose blades have stopped fullers stamped "Sharp & Hamilton, Nashville, Tenn." These, however, lack the attractive quality of the distinctive guard usually associated with the Plow Works. It was long believed that all castings of this guard were from the same mold....This is not apparent...Some were cast with a relatively smooth surface while others appear to be stippled or dotted. On some, the firm name is in large letters and small on others. Of the approximate twenty-five or more of these sabres personally handled, all but one had a brass backstrap (in contract to the College Hill Arsenal's iron)."
 
and I reply.

On August 10, 1859, the Nashville newspaper The Tennessean ran an advertising announcement that noted that the former proprietor of the Tennessee Plow Factory, A.W. Putnam, had turned the operation of the business over to Messrs. Sharp & Hamilton. Thomas Sharp and J.T. Hamilton were noted by the former operator to be "practical mechanics". Putnam went on to say that he could "cheerfully commend them as worthy of favor and extensive patronage." The business was located on the Franklin Turnpike (8th Avenue South in Nashville today) about a mile south of the Public Square. Today a State of Tennessee historical marker is erected near the original factory location at 8th Ave. South and Palmer Place, only yards from Cannery Row. The pair ran the firm, known locally as the Tennessee Plow Factory, as well as Putnam's Plow Factory, for less than a year before the business was destroyed by fire. According to articles printed on June 29, 1860 by both The Tennessean and the Daily Nashville Patriot, the manufactory was destroyed by a fire that erupted between 11:00 PM the previous evening and 12:00 AM on the 29th. The losses were reported variously at between $26,000 and $35,000. The building, valued at $17,000, was "a complete wreck" but was fully insured by the Bluff City Insurance Company of Memphis. However, Messers. Sharp & Hamilton reportedly suffered an uninsured loss of some $15,000 in equipment, machinery and raw materials. Not to be deterred, the pair set about to rebuild the business. The owner of the building, as well as the majority of the machinery, was A.W. Putnam; from whom they had acquired the operation of the business. On July 7, 1860, Putnam published a plea for financial assistance in the The Tennessean for the pair. Between Mr. Putnam's insurance, assistance from the citizens of Nashville, and the hard work of Sharp & Hamilton themselves, the pair raised the business from the ashes like the proverbial Phoenix and the new firm was christened the Nashville Plow Works.

The first reference that I could located for the Nashville Plow Works was an October 18, 1860 advertising notice in The Tennessean stating that Sharp & Hamilton had rebuilt their facility and had even expanded it, increasing their manufacturing capabilities. For nearly a year, the pair would continue to manufacture all forms of agricultural equipment, while the clouds of Civil War gathered. With the election of Abraham Lincoln as the president of United States in November of 1860, the final movement towards southern secession were inexorably put into motion. The secession of South Carolina, on December 20, 1860, followed by Mississippi on January 9, 1861 started a domino effect resulted in seven southern states seceding before the opening salvo of the American Civil War was fired on April 12, 1861 with the bombardment of Fort Sumter. Three additional states followed in quick succession, with Tennessee being the eleventh and last state to officially secede from the Union on June 8, 1861. With the state now on a war footing, much of the industrial capabilities of Tennessee now turned their attention to production of arms and material to support a war effort. Both the Nashville Plow Works of Sharp & Hamilton and Cunningham & Company (later known as College Hill Arsenal) turned their attention from the manufacture of farm implements to the production of edged weapons. At this time most historians make the hackneyed reference to the Biblical verse Isaiah 2:4 "…and they shall beat their swords into plowshares," noting that these Nashville companies, in particular Nashville Plow Works, had reversed the intention of the statement. More realistically, however, the firms followed the Biblical verse Joel 3:10, which instructed the reader to "Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, 'I am strong.'"

The first reference that I can find to Sharp & Hamilton producing edged weapons comes from a notice in the Saturday September 21, 1861 Daily Nashville Patriot, where a Mr. H.L. Justice has taken out an ad offering land for sale in the Nashville area. Mr. Justice notes that "I can be seen during the day at Sharp & Hamilton's Sword Factory". The very first receipt that I can find for the sale of Sharp & Hamilton sabers is dated October 4, 1861. This receipt is for "81 Sabers, Cav"at a total price of $851.50, roughly $10.50 each. The receipt also shows the sale of 33 pounds of zinc @ $0.15 per pound and 220 pounds of copper at $0.30 per pound. Six days later, on October 10, another receipt notes the delivery of "100 sabers @ $10.50" each, followed by 19 more on October 12 and an additional 58 on October 30. Sharp & Hamilton delivered a total of 258 cavalry sabers to the Confederacy that month, at a standard unit price of $10.50 each. Deliveries of both cavalry sabers and raw materials continued for the next four months. Records indicate in November the unit price was increased to $11.00 each, with 100 sabers delivered that month, 213 delivered in December and 229 delivered in January of 1862. In all, 800 sabers were delivered by the firm between October 1861 and January 1861. Additionally, Sharp & Hamilton sold the Confederacy 236 pounds of zinc, 798 pounds of copper and 102 pounds of lead, with the final raw material sales taking place on February 7, 1862.

It seems likely that all of the 800 sabers that were delivered by Sharp & Hamilton were enlisted cavalry sabers. Many of these are almost certainly the Sharp & Hamilton sabers that appear, both marked and unmarked, with a bird's head grip profile, an iron backstrap and capstan nut, a nine-groove leather-covered wood grip with twisted brass wire and a cast brass guard. It is possible that some of the unmarked, brass hilted plain cavalry sabers with the hilt shape more often referred to as "Nashville Plow Works" were part of these deliveries as well. As officers were required to purchase their own weapons and equipment, officer's sabers were rarely contracted for by the Confederacy. The handful of times that I have encountered receipts for the purchase of officer's sabers, they are so identified in writing as being "officer's" swords. All of these Sharp & Hamilton receipts are merely for "sabers" or "sabers, cav", indicating enlisted pattern swords. In searching through Confederate purchasing records, I could find no receipts or invoices for Nashville Plow Works. This suggests that all of the contracts were under the names of Sharp & Hamilton. It also suggests that some of the unmarked sabers that are attributed to "Nashville Plow Works" might more appropriately be called "Sharp & Hamilton" sabers. The Nashville Plow Works mark appears on some of the officer grade swords produced by Sharp & Hamilton, suggesting that we should only use that name for these officer's pattern swords.​
 
I read your response closely and the only reference to CHA follows: "Both the Nashville Plow Works of Sharp & Hamilton and Cunningham & Company (later known as College Hill Arsenal)..."

If I am reading correctly, the sentence denotes two distinct companies...1. NPW of S&H; and 2. Cunningham & Company (later known as CHA). I don't see anywhere in your passage that one acquired the other, so I'm inclined to believe they were indeed two separate and distinct manufacturers of CSA implements, particularly after finding the previous passage I provided on CHA and its operation under Cunningham. I have also found CHA listed as a separate competing manufacturer to NPW within several lists of competing arms manufacturers of the Civil War.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on the manufacturer at this point. Always good to spar with knowledge, even if it's only recently acquired through the internet!
 
It appears to have been in a fire and if so extra care needs to be used when handling it as may have become very brittle. But that said, it still has a distinct beauty about it.
 
I read your response closely and the only reference to CHA follows: "Both the Nashville Plow Works of Sharp & Hamilton and Cunningham & Company (later known as College Hill Arsenal)..."

If I am reading correctly, the sentence denotes two distinct companies...1. NPW of S&H; and 2. Cunningham & Company (later known as CHA). I don't see anywhere in your passage that one acquired the other, so I'm inclined to believe they were indeed two separate and distinct manufacturers of CSA implements, particularly after finding the previous passage I provided on CHA and its operation under Cunningham. I have also found CHA listed as a separate competing manufacturer to NPW within several lists of competing arms manufacturers of the Civil War.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on the manufacturer at this point. Always good to spar with knowledge, even if it's only recently acquired through the internet!
Welcome to one of the still unsolved mysteries of Confederate swords. I am from Nashville and have a special affinity for Nashville swords. I have been researching the relationship between CHA/NPW /Sharp &Hamilton for years. I am very close to unraveling it. Ihave an abundance of circumstantial evidence. I just need one or two more pieces to the puzzle and I will have the makings of an article or . maybe even a short reference book.

My conclusions, or hypotheses if you will, are reasoned inferences. Here are some of the basics. CHA was located approximately one mile from the Nashville Plow Works, across the street from the western border of the campus of the University of Nashville/Western Military Institute. CHA was adjacent to the State Arsenal to its north on present day 2d Avenue. College Hill products were identified originally both by their distinctive style of officers swords many with high quality etched blades that are very much alike and hence most likely attributable to a single artist. Unlike Sharp & Hamilton, CHA had a very robust market for private sales of field swords to officers. The Rosetta Stone was an engraved sword signed by Cunningham which enabled the identification of swords to maker. The foot officer and staff & field swords of CHA have the same style counter guard as the NPW cav saber; they are identical except the CHA versions do not have Nashville Plow Works in the casting. Some time ago, someone deduced that the cav saber that has the same style hilt missing the NPW casting (and the iron blackstrap and capstan rivet or nut) must be a CHA product. That is how these style sabers became known as College Hills

Also note that the blades on CHA swords are distinctive and different than the blades of NPW sabers. The CHA blades have a semi-stopped fuller that tapers at the ricasso like a "pen knife." The blades on the "CHA" saber are identical to those on an NPW and were made by different machinery or tools.They have no pen knife edge. it is possible that CHA had two blade different sets of tools and/or machinery and provided the saber blades to NPW, but more logically NPW made its own blades as it was a prolific producer of cav sabers (many thousands more than the surviving records above indicate). Sharp & Hamilton had contracts with both the CSA and Tennessee for sabers and one small contract for mounted infantry swords. There are no known field officer swords by NPW os Sharp and Hamilton.

In my opinion, the forensic evidence — the sabers themselves — strongly supports the conclusion that the CHA saber is actually a Sharp & Hamilton/NPW product. There is a clear evolution of the style and all 3 are obviously of the same lineage. The crudest or most basic design is the original Sharp & Hamilton saber. There are a handful that are marked with that name. It has an iron back strap, capstan nut and a narrow guard without branches that looks like it was fashioned from sheet brass. The CHA looks like the next improved version. It retains the iron back strap and capstan nut but now has the branched guard with CSA cast on the underside of the guard but no "Nashville Plow Works." The last improvement is the best known version with CSA and NPW cast into the underside of the guard and a brass backstop and no capstan nut. This version is by far the most prolific surviving saber from NPW, which suggests it was made in far bigger quantities than the other two variants. This is exactly the type of evolution you would expect to see as a company hurriedly transitions from making farm implements to military swords.

There are more bits of circumstantial corroborating evidence that are too tedious to get into. I firmly believe the CHA saber is a Nashville Plow Works product made by Sharp & Hamilton.

There are also an identifiable pattern of Dog River sabers that have many similarities (and a dissimilarity or 2) to NPW, including identical scabbards, that are sometimes called Tennessee arsenal sabers. That is another story waiting to be uncovered.

Will try to post some photos later. I have barn find NPW for comparison to your friend's.
 
I can't offer any advise and have no knowlege of swords and sabers. I just think it's pretty cool. I will say, however, that it seems pretty ratted out for an attic find. Looks more like it was covered in dirt in a barn or something of that nature. That's purely speculation, and wild speculation at that!
 
I tend too agree with the idea that CHA and NPW are one and the same, based on the evidence; however, that standard resource, William H. Albaugh writing in his ca. 1960's Photographic Supplement Of Confederate Swords lists both as separate entities. although I don't have my copy at hand, as I recall he admits that other than the cast NASHVILLE PLOW WORKS on the guard the only other differences between the two is the iron backstrap on the one, versus brass on the other, and I believe the same is true for the ferrule that holds the wooden grip. My poor, cut-down specimen:

A Typical Southern "Corn" or "Cane" Knife by Nashville Plow Works? | Small Arms & Edged Weapons (civilwartalk.com)

1612205957001.png
 
Welcome to one of the still unsolved mysteries of Confederate swords. I am from Nashville and have a special affinity for Nashville swords. I have been researching the relationship between CHA/NPW /Sharp &Hamilton for years. I am very close to unraveling it. Ihave an abundance of circumstantial evidence. I just need one or two more pieces to the puzzle and I will have the makings of an article or . maybe even a short reference book.

My conclusions, or hypotheses if you will, are reasoned inferences. Here are some of the basics. CHA was located approximately one mile from the Nashville Plow Works, across the street from the western border of the campus of the University of Nashville/Western Military Institute. CHA was adjacent to the State Arsenal to its north on present day 2d Avenue. College Hill products were identified originally both by their distinctive style of officers swords many with high quality etched blades that are very much alike and hence most likely attributable to a single artist. Unlike Sharp & Hamilton, CHA had a very robust market for private sales of field swords to officers. The Rosetta Stone was an engraved sword signed by Cunningham which enabled the identification of swords to maker. The foot officer and staff & field swords of CHA have the same style counter guard as the NPW cav saber; they are identical except the CHA versions do not have Nashville Plow Works in the casting. Some time ago, someone deduced that the cav saber that has the same style hilt missing the NPW casting (and the iron blackstrap and capstan rivet or nut) must be a CHA product. That is how these style sabers became known as College Hills

Also note that the blades on CHA swords are distinctive and different than the blades of NPW sabers. The CHA blades have a semi-stopped fuller that tapers at the ricasso like a "pen knife." The blades on the "CHA" saber are identical to those on an NPW and were made by different machinery or tools.They have no pen knife edge. it is possible that CHA had two blade different sets of tools and/or machinery and provided the saber blades to NPW, but more logically NPW made its own blades as it was a prolific producer of cav sabers (many thousands more than the surviving records above indicate). Sharp & Hamilton had contracts with both the CSA and Tennessee for sabers and one small contract for mounted infantry swords. There are no known field officer swords by NPW os Sharp and Hamilton.

In my opinion, the forensic evidence — the sabers themselves — strongly supports the conclusion that the CHA saber is actually a Sharp & Hamilton/NPW product. There is a clear evolution of the style and all 3 are obviously of the same lineage. The crudest or most basic design is the original Sharp & Hamilton saber. There are a handful that are marked with that name. It has an iron back strap, capstan nut and a narrow guard without branches that looks like it was fashioned from sheet brass. The CHA looks like the next improved version. It retains the iron back strap and capstan nut but now has the branched guard with CSA cast on the underside of the guard but no "Nashville Plow Works." The last improvement is the best known version with CSA and NPW cast into the underside of the guard and a brass backstop and no capstan nut. This version is by far the most prolific surviving saber from NPW, which suggests it was made in far bigger quantities than the other two variants. This is exactly the type of evolution you would expect to see as a company hurriedly transitions from making farm implements to military swords.

There are more bits of circumstantial corroborating evidence that are too tedious to get into. I firmly believe the CHA saber is a Nashville Plow Works product made by Sharp & Hamilton.

There are also an identifiable pattern of Dog River sabers that have many similarities (and a dissimilarity or 2) to NPW, including identical scabbards, that are sometimes called Tennessee arsenal sabers. That is another story waiting to be uncovered.

Will try to post some photos later. I have barn find NPW for comparison to your friend's.
I concede, I concede! Based on all the evidence presented by uvrelics, James N. and yourself, I have changed my opinion and agree that is most likely is an NPW/S&H. At first, I was convinced that Cunningham's factory produced it, especially after reading at least 4 different accounts of College Hill Arsenal being a separate distinct competitor to NPW, and that he was "the" direct competitor to NPW, but after noting that the CHA examples have blank guards, it appears the attic find is likely indeed a S&H/NPW since there is some obscured blocked stamping on the rusty relic.

Two examples of NPW specimens below appear to show different stamping upon the guard, however, with one being shorter than the other. Were there different guard casts/molds than NPW that could account for the difference? In the pic below, you see my friend's rusty relic in the upper left, with the 2 NPW specimens at top right and bottom left (see the script length difference?), and finally what was listed as an authentic CHA at bottom right, based on the lack of script altogether. Could the longer script NPW simply be a re-pop ? Interesting, and thanks to all who responded previously.

Screen Shot 2021-02-01 at 2.56.13 PM.png
 
I concede, I concede! Based on all the evidence presented by uvrelics, James N. and yourself, I have changed my opinion and agree that is most likely is an NPW/S&H. At first, I was convinced that Cunningham's factory produced it, especially after reading at least 4 different accounts of College Hill Arsenal being a separate distinct competitor to NPW, and that he was "the" direct competitor to NPW, but after noting that the CHA examples have blank guards, it appears the attic find is likely indeed a S&H/NPW since there is some obscured blocked stamping on the rusty relic.

Two examples of NPW specimens below appear to show different stamping upon the guard, however, with one being shorter than the other. Were there different guard casts/molds than NPW that could account for the difference? In the pic below, you see my friend's rusty relic in the upper left, with the 2 NPW specimens at top right and bottom left (see the script length difference?), and finally what was listed as an authentic CHA at bottom right, based on the lack of script altogether. Could the longer script NPW simply be a re-pop ? Interesting, and thanks to all who responded previously.

View attachment 389631
Can you post a closeup photo of the top of the guard?
 
Looking at the pics below to compare to an original Nashville Plow Works. Not the same. Wish I could make out the writing on pic #4 on the blade side of the guard (is the correct term quillion?)

View attachment 389569

View attachment 389570
I don't believe that this can be considered an original piece, there is way too much wrong with it. The unstopped fuller should be visible almost all the way up the blade, the name should be legible and come down lower in the arc.

The sword was not made this way, but distressed to make it appear original, in untouched state it would present as an obvious fake.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top