Sword

[Package4]

Further "proof" that the sword was not field used are in the US & CS Regulations and returns, the US Regulations from 1861 on do not show a form for either issuance or return of the sword. The Ordinance Department was responsible for accouterment, small arms and horse implements for the Field Artillery, their requisition forms and return forms omit the M1832 Short Sword. The CS Regulations are an almost exact copy of the US, in my collection I have Maj Mason Moffit's CS Regulations and the forms are eerily similar with exception that the Horse Artillery Saber is called the Pattern 1850. The first three scans are from the CS regs and the second two are US.

 

[byron ed]

Known as a sergeant's plate to reenactors, but not requisitioned from the quartermaster in that manner

Meh, relevance. Written parlance of a company clerk. But people (soldiers) just didn't talk like that -- "Hey Sarge, my Waist Belt Plate, Regulation 1851 Pattern, Enlisted is busted. Kin I git 'nother'un?" -- the reenactorism is in supposing they did talk like that.

 

[byron ed]

Further "proof" that the sword was not field used are in the US & CS Regulations and returns, the US Regulations from 1861 on do not show a form for either issuance or return of the sword. The Ordinance Department ...forms and return forms omit the M1832 Short Sword. The CS Regulations are an almost exact copy of the US...The first three scans are from the CS regs and the second two are US.

Of course most all the short swords would have already been issued out by 1861. By your own findings to the point that a mere 300 were ordered from the factory by mid war. These specialized swords are not like cartridges, needing to be replenished every few months. And they were not issued as worn accroutements. There were Artillery sabres for that. So not much of an opportunity that a lot were lost needing replenishment.

You really, really want that these swords were never issued or used, that's clear. What about them is so threatening to your participation in history?

 

[Schwallanscher]

Meh, relevance. Written parlance of a company clerk. But people (soldiers) just didn't talk like that -- "Hey Sarge, my Waist Belt Plate, Regulation 1851 Pattern, Enlisted is busted. Kin I git 'nother'un?" -- the reenactorism is in supposing they did.

let's all use made up definitions to mess with newbies' brains - sounds like fun

 

[byron ed]

let's all use made up definitions to mess with newbies' brains - sounds like fun

Anything that begins to get a bit over the head, people can just ask questions. Inappropriate to be making fun of them.

 

[Package4]

Meh, relevance. Written parlance of a company clerk. But people (soldiers) just didn't talk like that -- "Hey Sarge, my Waist Belt Plate, Regulation 1851 Pattern, Enlisted is busted. Kin I git 'nother'un?" -- the reenactorism is in supposing they did.

But we are talking about issue and returns and how they were referred to in that parlance. "You" call them a sergeant's plate, I deal in reality and educating individuals who come to this site to learn.

I am fortunate enough to have collected for a fairly long time and in doing so have amassed a decent uniform collection. Research, through photographs, diaries and yes metal detecting show how the soldiers used various pieces of equipment. I am also lucky enough to consider many of the experts, friends, through my collecting and consulting on Civil War uniforms.

Some of my collection has been reproduced for the reenactor market (I'd frockcoat, I'd sack coat and I'd forage cap). Currently in discussions to undertake a Confederate headgear book with William Wickham, combining our Confederate collections and that of another to produce the first of its kind, so yes, research and fact are very important to me.

My research is for collecting purposes and the areas where used, or not.

I could care less if the M1832 short sword was used or not, but those whom I respect, both historians and diggers say that it was not. I go with them and until there is proof to the contrary that is what I will continue to believe.

The fact that the sword was not even listed on the returns for field artillery speaks volumes.

 

[James N.]

Further "proof" that the sword was not field used are in the US & CS Regulations and returns, the US Regulations from 1861 on do not show a form for either issuance or return of the sword. The Ordinance Department was responsible for accouterment, small arms and horse implements for the Field Artillery, their requisition forms and return forms omit the M1832 Short Sword. The CS Regulations are an almost exact copy of the US, in my collection I have Maj Mason Moffit's CS Regulations and the forms are eerily similar with exception that the Horse Artillery Saber is called the Pattern 1850...

Just to play Devil's Advocate, the one thing I see wrong with this form is the total omission of one regulation issue enlisted man's sword that was unquestionably used: the M.1840 Musicians' Sword. No doubt they saw limited use, but examples have been found on battlefields and/or camp sites and enough photographic evidence showing them being worn exists, so I wonder why they aren't mentioned?

 

[Package4]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, the one thing I see wrong with this form is the total omission of one regulation issue enlisted man's sword that was unquestionably used: the M.1840 Musicians' Sword. No doubt they saw limited use, but examples have been found on battlefields and/or camp sites and enough photographic evidence showing them being worn exists, so I wonder why they aren't mentioned?

This section was under artillery, so I'm not sure it would be pertinent, all other listed could be for mounted or foot. There are so many forms it is absolutely ridiculous and in line with today's military, name nomenclature and form.

 

[Package4]

I've been told that too, but after all it's only a supposition* In Quartermaster view an artillery private was an artillery private, and the 1832 short sword was not banned for use by any artillery private, including field artillery. Not only do we see at least one Mich. field artillerist's example given earlier, but it's important to understand that individual batteries equipped as individual batteries did. For example, in my legacy unit all the privates wore sargeant's (square eagle) buckles. What of it?


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* We hobbyists today make far too much of what was issue and what was not. It was mostly a volunteer army. It is reenactors that tend to obcess over what was issue and what was not. The real army back then not so much. Notice how every once in a while an exception of gear found in an old tintype causes pages of conniptions in following threads. We just don't get it.

If your legacy group are infantry, "farb" comes to mind, if not the issue would be correct, an individual infantry company would not be able to get away with #1. convincing the Quartermaster to order 100 or so eagle plates for an individual company. #2 The captain would be called out by the regimental staff for being out of regulation and #3 someone would spend time in the guard house.

Individual batteries equipped as were issued and foraged for the rest.

 

[Lanyard Puller]

And White Flint Bill's short sword is still a McElroy....

 

[byron ed]

But we are talking about issue and returns and how they were referred to in that parlance.

No, it's you talking about issue and returns, and that's fine. But it's also ok refer to items in shorthand: "Mississippi rifle," "Jefferson bootie,, "dog tent," "Arkansas toothpick," "gum coat," "sergeant's plate," or the term you just used: "eagle plate."

The fact that the sword was not even listed on the returns for field artillery speaks volumes.

Meh. The war was over. There's no volumes of anything in that.

 

[byron ed]

...an individual infantry company would not be able to get away with #1. convincing the Quartermaster to order 100 or so eagle plates for an individual company. #2 The captain would be called out by the regimental staff for being out of regulation and #3 someone would spend time in the guard house. Individual batteries equipped as were issued and foraged for the rest.

Oh, in reenacting that can definitely become the mode. I've seen a lot of walking drill manuals in action. To suppose the real army actually enforced petty **** like that more than once (How dare the war interfere with my buckle order!)

In real CW history (mostly volunteer army context) drills and procedures were treated as goals. For us today they are a really good indication of what was expected. There's a reason they were re-published every few years -- and it wasn't because all the violators were in the guard house.

 

[byron ed]

If your legacy group are infantry, "farb" comes to mind

No, my legacy unit was Artillery, and had a pretty stellar service record, including a MOH recipient. Anyway "farb" is a modern term and can't possibly apply to a legacy unit.

So apologies accepted if offered. Keeping on topic also appreciated.

 

[Package4]

No, you are talking about issue and returns, and that's fine. It's ok refer to items in shorthand as well: "Mississippi rifle" "Jefferson bootie", "dog tent", "Arkansas toothpick", "gum coat", "sergeant's plate"...



Meh. The war was over. There's no volumes of anything in that.

I decided to stop being lazy and go to the source, "The American Sword" by Harold Peterson, Harry is too old now to pick up the phone and call, but his research is some of the finest and most complete there is. He was the Curator for the National Park Service and author of many fine books on various subjects. I would occasionally run a sword by Harry when I couldn't figure out the origin or maker, in fact I had a straight cav sword with scabbard M1860 Ames and I could not figure out the deal. Harry pointed out that it was simply straightened at an armory most likely to be used as an infantry officer's sword. I thought I had a one off with special scabbard.....

I digress, page 38 of the tome states that until 1832 enlisted men of the artillery did not have a sword of their own. There was no light or horse artillery in the American Army until 1808 and with a successful experiment the company armed themselves with cavalry sabers.

Then a study was undertaken of artillery units in France, both foot and light. In 1832, as a result of the study, a special distinctive sword was adopted exclusively for the foot artillery, it wasn't until 1840 that the field branch adopted the Light Artillery saber, prior to that they continued to utilize cavalry sabers. Regulations for the Government of the Ordinance Department for 1834 and 1839 state that the sword was to be issued to foot artillery.

Foot Artillery are the Heavy Artillery manning static fortifications, while Field Artillery would be mobile via horse drawn caissons & limbers, this explains why relic hunters do not find them in the field and surviving specimens are in such great shape.

This is echoed in Richard Bezdek's great book "American Swords and Sword Makers"

My sword books were upstairs boxed away, so I finally went on the hunt.

 

[Mild53]

For any interested, this sword likely belonged to Sgt. George William Keesee of the Danville (Va) Artillery, killed at Sharpsburg. If not, then to his brother Cpl. Peyton Clay Keesee, who was wounded that morning alongside his brother. Peyton was left behind to tend to his dying brother, was captured and later exchanged. When his term was up he transferred to Co. C of the 5th Virginia Cavalry. Fortunately for me, Peyton survived the war.

Before I rescued this sword from her, my mother was using it as a wood stove poker.

Please break it to your mom slowly and carefully how valuable this sword is!

 

[byron ed]

Foot Artillery are the Heavy Artillery manning static fortifications, while Field Artillery would be mobile via horse drawn caissons & limbers, this explains why relic hunters do not find them in the field and surviving specimens are in such great shape.

Or, Foot Artillery did not always refer only to those manning static fortifications [underlines mine - B.E.]:

from Artillerists Manual / Gibbons / Second Edition / 1859:

"...342 Field Artillery

[that's right, this is from the Field Artillery section of the book, not from a separate chapter covering static heavy artillery - B.E.]

...In the mounted batteries, formerly called foot-artillery, the cannoneers are on foot, and remain so during the manoeuvres of the battery, except when it is desired to move at a very rapid rate, when they are mounted on the ammunition -boxes."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

from Hand-Book of Artillery / Roberts / Fifth Edition Revised /1863:

"...On Field Guns and Batteries

[once again, not from a separate chapter covering static heavy artillery - B.E.]

...5. Are all field batteries alike?
No; field-batteries accompanying infantry are composed of the heavier, and those accompanying cavalry of the lighter pieces, the first manned by foot-artillery, and the latter by horse-artillery.
8. In what respect does a battery of horse artillery differ from one of foot artillery?
The main difference consists in the cannoneers in a battery of horse-artillery being mounted; in rapid evolutions of foot-artillery they are conveyed on the carriages.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The big picture is that it cannot be denied that the sword was issued and used at some level to some kinds of artillerists and that surviving examples are definitely of CW provenance, regardless of how much or how little they were used. Let's leave it to the reenactors to advocate.

 

[Package4]

Or, Foot Artillery did not always refer only to those manning static fortifications [underlines mine - B.E.]:

from Artillerists Manual / Gibbons / Second Edition / 1859:

"...342 Field Artillery

[that's right, this is from the Field Artillery section of the book, not from a separate chapter covering static heavy artillery - B.E.]

...In the mounted batteries, formerly called foot-artillery, the cannoneers are on foot, and remain so during the manoeuvres of the battery, except when it is desired to move at a very rapid rate, when they are mounted on the ammunition -boxes."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

from Hand-Book of Artillery / Roberts / Fifth Edition Revised /1863:

"...On Field Guns and Batteries

[once again, not from a separate chapter covering static heavy artillery - B.E.]

...5. Are all field batteries alike?
No; field-batteries accompanying infantry are composed of the heavier, and those accompanying cavalry of the lighter pieces, the first manned by foot-artillery, and the latter by horse-artillery.
8. In what respect does a battery of horse artillery differ from one of foot artillery?
The main difference consists in the cannoneers in a battery of horse-artillery being mounted; in rapid evolutions of foot-artillery they are conveyed on the carriages.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The big picture is that it cannot be denied that the sword was issued and used at some level to some kinds of artillerists and that surviving examples are definitely of CW provenance, regardless of how much or how little they were used. Let's leave it to the reenactors to advocate.

Further research would imply that you are either being disingenuous or just incomplete, our purpose should be to get it right:

Gibbons compiled a series of manuals, more for instruction for cadets at West Point than anything else and states as such, but he also states:
"Divided. - The following is the most recent division of the United States Artillery into two kinds according to its duties. Heavy or foot-artillery is that portion which takes charge of and manoeuvres the siege, sea coast and mountain artillery. Light or field-artillery, is that portion which manoeuvres field pieces with troops in the field. It is divided into horse-artillery and mounted batteries." Page 342, Field-Artillery section; Artillerist Manual printed August 14, 1859

Directly copied from the source:

342 FIELD-ARTILLERY. Divided.- The following is the most recent division of the United States artillery into kinds according to its duties. Heavy or foot-artillery is that portion which takes charge of and manoeuvres the siege, sea -coast, and mountain -artillery. Light or field-artillery, is that portion which manoeuvres field -pieces with troops in the field. It is divided into horse-artillery and mounted batteries. In horse-artillery, the cannoneers, of which there are eleven to each piece, are mounted on horses, from which they have to dismount before attending on the piece, the two extra men holding the horses of the rest. In the mounted batteries, formerly called foot -artillery, the cannoneers are on foot, and. remain so during the manoeuvres of the battery, except when it is desired to move at a very rapid rate, when they are mounted on the ammunition -boxes. The horse-artillery was originally and is still designed for service with cavalry, receiving the lightest guns, which enables it to move at the same rate as the cavalry, and to keep it up for a considerable time. In time of peace, or in the state of preparation for war, a

Further:

The official artillerist manual is the "Instruction for Field Artillery", completed in 1860 though begun in 1856 and "prepared by a board of artillery officers: Maj William H French, Capt. William F Barry and Maj Henry J Hunt and approved by Secretary of War, John B Floyd on March 6, 1860, revised 1864. Looking at the first page, below, foot-artillery is described, delineating it from the field-artillery:

 

[byron ed]

...our purpose should be to get it right: Gibbons compiled a series of manuals

So there we have it, and thanks. Inconsistencies even among period Army texts as to what foot artillery is. Read the direct cites I provided, then read the direct cites you provided (and please for the next time just excerpt the pertinent stuff. Entire page scans disrespect our time, as if without it we wouldn't trust your points).

I'm sorry but there are just no slam dunks on this one. If our purpose is to get it right, that's what we pass along. Let's knock it off going for the slam-dunk proof thing.

Again, the big picture is that it cannot be denied that the sword was issued and used at some level to some kinds of artillerists and that surviving examples are definitely of CW provenance, regardless of how much or how little they were used.

 

[JPChurch]

It's pretty unlikely my M1832 Artillery Short Sword was used by any members of the 1st Michigan Light Artillery, including my G-G-Grandfather. It's more likely he might have used a Remington M1858 New Model Army, but both are kinda cool for display. I often wish I had more opportunity to share my ACW collection with the public. View attachment 177464

Interesting. Which Battery was he in??? My G G grandpa was in battery "I." AKA 9th Michigan Battery.....

 

[Mike Serpa]

Certainly not patterned after a Greek swordView attachment 175622

Ray Harryhausen's work. Don't remember the movie. Sinbad?