Sword Question

[Chattahooch33]

This is my cousin Lt. James Wofford of the 40th Georgia. He was killed on this day in '64 by artillery on the far left of the confederate line at Kennesaw Mountain. My question is about his sword, it seems to have a strange hilt, and is that a pistol on his other side? I also assume this to be a very early war image due to the shoulder bars and hardee hat.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I agree that the antique looking sword could have been a prop or heirloom.

It is curious that the well tailored coat has branch piping on the collar, lieutenant's shoulder boards & the Hardy hat complete with feather are all US army standard. Completely absent is any symbol of CSA rank.

Anybody looking at this image would identify him as an early war Union lieutenant with a funny sword.

Are you entirely positive of the CSA ID on this image? As a rule, things look like what they are.

 

[Old Soldier]

Yes, a bit of a mystery. It may even have been taken before the start of hostilities. He may have been a former serving US soldier at the time, before uniforms were standardised. Here is another (4th Georgia) taken early in 1861. A lot more elaborate, but note the dark uniform.

As other have said, the officers bought their own swords so a family heirloom seems quite in order. The object on the right looks like the scabbard for the sword with a ring at the top (probably the upper of two, given the age of the sword) and a sling attached. If he had a revolver, it would have been in a holster on his belt.

 

[R. Porter]

Yup probably a studio prop. When we were dumb*** privates long ago we went down to the Arms Room and signed out every foreign and domestic weapon in there. Took them to my barracks room and posed with them in front of the big American flag I had up on the wall. Nothing charges 100-150 years later!

You still got any of those pictures? It might be a hoot to see them and compare them with the Civil War soldiers about to march off to war. I would think that if there's one thing that doesn't change, it's guys holding all kinds of crazy weapons striking poses trying to look tough but actually looking a little goofy.

 

[R. Porter]

No. He did not go to the photographers with a prop rifle, it was given to him by the studio. The point I was making was that he was NOT ISSUED a rifle. A sergeant-major was only issued with a sword and maybe a pistol. The NY militia were NOT armed with M1861s but M1855s (from photos of the time). This rifle is hard to identify, but is probably a M1855, given the date on the photo. Most of these photos hide the action

Now it's time for me to criticise myself for not writing clearly. I didn't mean the sergeant went to the photographer carrying a prop rifle with him, rather that he went to a photographer who had a prop rifle for his photographic subjects. The rifle looked to me to be a lot better than what thousands of soldiers had been issued to carry with them off to war and I was expressing astonishment that soldiers would go to a photographer who was using a much better firearm as a prop when they had to defend their lives with older refurbished firearms on the battlefield. I thought it looked like it could have been an model 1861 because it didn't have a bar passing between the two lock screws that stuck out on the other side from the action. Then I started looking and came arcross that web page with the damaged rifles and became distracted and never went back to my search. (Sort of like that dog in the movie "Up" (Dug?) who kept getting distracted by squirrels.)

 

[Old Soldier]

Now it's time for me to criticise myself for not writing clearly. I didn't mean the sergeant went to the photographer carrying a prop rifle with him, rather that he went to a photographer who had a prop rifle for his photographic subjects. The rifle looked to me to be a lot better than what thousands of soldiers had been issued to carry with them off to war and I was expressing astonishment that soldiers would go to a photographer who was using a much better firearm as a prop when they had to defend their lives with older refurbished firearms on the battlefield. I thought it looked like it could have been an model 1861 because it didn't have a bar passing between the two lock screws that stuck out on the other side from the action. Then I started looking and came arcross that web page with the damaged rifles and became distracted and never went back to my search. (Sort of like that dog in the movie "Up" (Dug?) who kept getting distracted by squirrels.)

I have other photos of the NY Militia on call-up in 1861 and all seem to be armed with the M1855s. They were one of the better equipped - and photographed - militias. Of course, due to exposure times, these photos were posed, (the equivalent of today's PhotoShopped) so the authorities would ensure they had the best equipment on view. Propaganda isn't anything new! Many of these Brady studio photos were posed for official purposes, not for the soldier's mantlepiece. That was left to the far cheaper 'Tintype' group of direct imaging photos.

The problem with issue weapons was similar to Britain's Home Guard (Local Defence Volunteers) in 1940 - no stockpiles of up to date weapons available and an industry used to peacetime production rates. There just were not enough to go around. (There is one photo of a Home Guard soldier with a Snider!) Most of the older weapons appear to have been issue for newly formed units rather than the militias and many bought-in weapons (Lorenz M-1854s and Enfield P53s) were issued piecemeal across the board initially. Some new regiments had up to five different types issued by company, especially those in the West. This also meant that ammunition was rather - complicated - too, as they were all of different calibers. (The Lorenz initially used the .54 Mississippi rifle cartridge. Many were re-bored. Enfield used the standard .58 cartridge.) I suspect this variation also applied to swords and certainly to pistols.