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.

 

[Patrick H]

I'm not a sword expert by any means, but straight cross guards with "clamshells" are not unusual on dress swords. In fact, my immigrant ancestor carried a similar sword in the Revolutionary War. I'm guessing your cousin is posing with a couple of studio props. One is an older, light sword with a clamshell and perhaps a chain guard. I think the object on his hip is actually the muzzle of a rifle leaning against him. Hard to say for sure. I expect someone with more knowledge will chime in very soon.

 

[bobinwmass]

Appears to be a militia officer's sword from the late 1840's through the Civil War period. A similar style hilt with the cruciform cross guard, large clamshell langet, and chain is pictured in Thillmann's book on Army swords, page 569. I don't feel comfortable posting a photo as images in the book would fall under the copyright protection.

 

[bobinwmass]

This is the closest thing to it in my collection, though there are differences. Notice the straight blade with what appears a central fuller seem the same.

 

[Patrick H]

This is the closest thing to it in my collection, though there are differences. Notice the straight blade with what appears a central fuller seem the same.View attachment 476035

This is perfect. I just KNEW someone with more knowledge would chime in right away. ...and this is a very beautiful sword, by the way!

 

[Cavalier]

I could be all wet of course, and am no kind of sword expert but that thing on his other side might be the top of a scabbard for the sword. Just a thought.

John

 

[Tanglewood]

I could be all wet of course, and am no kind of sword expert but that thing on his other side might be the top of a scabbard for the sword. Just a thought.

John

I think that you are exactly right, it is likely the scabbard, and one of the carrying rings is visible. If it was a shoulder arm at that angle it would be very short to only reach that high.

 

[Patrick H]

I could be all wet of course, and am no kind of sword expert but that thing on his other side might be the top of a scabbard for the sword. Just a thought.

John

After taking another look, I also think you are correct.

 

[R. Porter]

I tried to enlarge the photo some so that I could get a better look at it. Looking at the closure of the jacket I saw that it was a reverse image so I mirrored it to make it look the way it would if you were looking at the subject in person. Some observations:

The belt appears to be shifted so that the buckle is behind the sword quillon.

The scabbard is on his right side but there is something behind it that could be part of a pistol or something else.

On his left between his arm and sword blade is something that could be part of the back to his chair.

His sword guard appear to be thin and have a ferrule above it and below it. This thin-ness could be due to the guard being flat.

The knuckle bow does not appear to attach to the quillon the way a chain would and may be a flat, rigid piece of metal.

The blade appears to be blued and to have designs on it. It may have a single edge and flat spine rather than two edges.

The clam shell guard appear symmetrical. I could not find a match but it looks similar to French examples that have a shell or spider web motif.

An 1840's to 1850's militia officer's sword would be reasonable.

 

[Chattahooch33]

I tried to enlarge the photo some so that I could get a better look at it. Looking at the closure of the jacket I saw that it was a reverse image so I mirrored it to make it look the way it would if you were looking at the subject in person. Some observations:

The belt appears to be shifted so that the buckle is behind the sword quillon.

The scabbard is on his right side but there is something behind it that could be part of a pistol or something else.

On his left between his arm and sword blade is something that could be part of the back to his chair.

His sword guard appear to be thin and have a ferrule above it and below it. This thin-ness could be due to the guard being flat.

The knuckle bow does not appear to attach to the quillon the way a chain would and may be a flat, rigid piece of metal.

The blade appears to be blued and to have designs on it. It may have a single edge and flat spine rather than two edges.

The clam shell guard appear symmetrical. I could not find a match but it looks similar to French examples that have a shell or spider web motif.

An 1840's to 1850's militia officer's sword would be reasonable.

View attachment 476209

Thank you for the work. There is something pre-war militia about the photo, particularly that he has shoulder bars as a Confederate officer.

 

[Old Soldier]

The 'down side' would be that it may even have been an 'extra' held by the photographer to make their subject look so much better. Most of the pistols, rifles and swords in many photos were held in the studio for such purposes.

 

[R. Porter]

If it turns out that the sword was made in France for a French customer and was non-military, like a court sword or one for an ambassador or public official, I would say there's a good chance it's a prop. If it is a military style used in the U.S. it may be the soldier's own. If he's an officer he probably had to provide his own sword and if it was passed down in the family or he bought it new, he might want to show it off.

I have often heard that swords and guns seen in soldiers' pictures are props but there are many cases where I have seen a soldier with a unique sword that I have not seen anywhere else. Granted, I haven't seen that many period photos but I wonder how true the prop label is.

 

[Old Soldier]

These props seem to have been used in the early months of the war, before issue weapons were available - or allowed to be taken off site. There is a preponderance of revolvers, many Colts , but also a large proportion of British Adams and Tranter. Most are shown held in the hand or pushed under the belt, many have two or three - as well as a bare knife. Most soldiers other than cavalry were not issued with revolvers but there is rarely any sign of a holster or scabbard - a standard for issue weapons. More than a few are 'pocket' revolvers or knives of dubious miliary use. Yes, they may have been private purchase, but as they reached operations in the field, many were 'disposed of' as being more of a hinderance - and weight - on long marches. Two examples:

1861 This is a Union militia Sergeant-Major who was not issued, or needed, a rifle. He already has two pistols in holsters on his belt and his issue sword (scabbard under shoulder bag).

1862 This is a Confederate sergeant with a large short sword (MAY have a scabbard) and two pistols - a Colt Navy in his belt and a small calibre (120-bore?) Adams - and not a holster in sight! But it looks good! (The lines on his upper leg are the barrels of a double shotgun - possibly his own)

 

[Tanglewood]

Here in the Deep South, the large short sword pictured is known as a Confederate D-guard Bowie.

I have thought that likely these soldiers did not make solitary trips to the photographer, but went with their buddies, and added some of their friends' weapons to their pose, to look more impressive.

 

[Old Soldier]

Here in the Deep South, the large short sword pictured is known as a Confederate D-guard Bowie.

I have thought that likely these soldiers did not make solitary trips to the photographer, but went with their buddies, and added some of their friends' weapons to their pose, to look more impressive.

The original 'Bowie' was a cut-down sword too!

For a studio shot, if they went with buddies, it was usually an unarmed group photo. Hard to say about these photo sessons, but when you have seen a number from a single photographer, you begin to see the same guns used again and over again. Many photographers apparently did not allow weapons into the studio - no accidents then - and ensured that their props were unloaded or unsharpened. Sheathed bayonets and swords seem to have been allowed as well as holstered pistols as the photos above show. I have one of a Medal of Honor winner holding a 2-band rifle (likely a Harpers Ferry M1855 rifle - bar on barrel) with no sling and a saber bayonet attached - and the same bayonet in a scabbard on his waistbelt!

 

[R. Porter]

So that first militia sergeant went to a photographer with a prop rifle? Is that a model 1861 Springfield? So during the first year of the war photographers had unloaded Springfields and militia soldiers fought with flintlocks or model 1816 Springfields converted to percussion?

I was trying to find images of 1861 Springfields for comparison and found this neat site showing Civil War rifles struck by lightning, eaten by porcupines, shot by cannon balls, and hit by bullets.

Mishaps - Springfield Armory National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

 

[Cavalier]

I am certainly no sword expert but the sword in the photo of Lt. James Wofford of the 40th. Georgia looks like a War of 1812 era spadroon to me. I believe they were popular here in that era, among several others types and it is my impression that they were carried in combat by officers during the war of 1812.

There are many photographes of officers wearing their swords. Regulations required that they provide their own and it is my impression that Confederate officers sometimes carried non regulation models in the field. It is also my impression that there were recorded incidents of officers who had carried family heirloom swords in the Civil War, but of course now can't recall who they were.

Only an opinion, but if I had some special sword, or had laid out a substantial sum for one, and was being photographed in my uniform, I'd sure as hell want the **** thing in the picture.

Just some thoughts. But its a great picture regardless!

John

 

[bayonet]

The 'down side' would be that it may even have been an 'extra' held by the photographer to make their subject look so much better. Most of the pistols, rifles and swords in many photos were held in the studio for such purposes.

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!

 

[Old Soldier]

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!

But in those days there was nothing to 'sign out'.

 

[Old Soldier]

So that first militia sergeant went to a photographer with a prop rifle? Is that a model 1861 Springfield? So during the first year of the war photographers had unloaded Springfields and militia soldiers fought with flintlocks or model 1816 Springfields converted to percussion?

I was trying to find images of 1861 Springfields for comparison and found this neat site showing Civil War rifles struck by lightning, eaten by porcupines, shot by cannon balls, and hit by bullets.

Mishaps - Springfield Armory National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

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