Uniforms Union or Confederate Tintype?

[CyleKostello]

Hi all,

Wanted to get some opinions on this tintype.

It's got a pencil ID to an Alabaman but the jacket (button count and trim) is reminiscent of a Union arty. coat to my eye. Looks like he's got some cap decoration as well. Overall it seems like too many buttons for a confederate.


What gives me pause is that the coat seems a lot lighter than most artilleryman tintypes I've seen (could be a trick of the light/poor equipment). For contrast I've included a pic of an artilleryman from my collection.

The photo became separated from the holder at some point in the past 150 odd years but it definitely belongs with the holder. The subject also has 11 buttons compared to the typical 12 on federal arty/cav jackets. No sign of the neck buttons either.


Also, would the red artillery trim show up as lighter than the jacket, rather than darker?

What do other folks think?

Thanks in advance!

 

[CyleKostello]

Here's a full example of a Union artillery shell jacket.

The trim at the bottom looks different than the trim in the photo. On the jacket the trim is one thin line below the 12th button. In the photo the section of dark trim looks thicker, stretching from below the 10th button to the bottom of the jacket

 

[RedRover]

Agreed that the image looks more like a federal mounted jacket. The cap in the photograph does look alot like a US Army forage cap, but that does not necessarily mean anything. Here are some rebs in forage caps alot like those of the United States (if not actually captured examples):

Sidney Reed of the 2nd Kentucky Infantry CSA, killed at Murfreesboro:

James Calhoun of the 6th Florida volunteers:

As for the jacket, it could be Confederate, considering there were no fixed rules or regulations for Confederate jackets. No doubt the dozen or so small buttons suggest a US Army mounted jacket. I would be sold that it was indeed US if cuff trim were perfectly visible. Nor am I certain that the jacket in the image actually has colored trim on the front and bottom. I suspect the dark line in front is more a shadow than actually trimming:

And the edges may be just top-stitched, like in this reb's jacket:

Here's some Confederate jackets still around, showing this top-stitching...

 

[CyleKostello]

Great points all around, thanks. The "trim" absolutely could be a shadow. It's unfortunate his cuffs aren't visible. There looks like what could be trim on his right arm (left side of the photo - tt's are reversed). But that could be a shadow as well, hard to say.

The lighting issues might be explained by the fact that this looks like it may have be taken in the field, rather than a photgrapher's studio.

 

[Package4]

Great points all around, thanks. The "trim" absolutely could be a shadow. It's unfortunate his cuffs aren't visible. There looks like what could be trim on his right arm (left side of the photo - tt's are reversed). But that could be a shadow as well, hard to say.

The lighting issues might be explained by the fact that this looks like it may have be taken in the field, rather than a photgrapher's studio.

VRC?

 

[CyleKostello]

VRC?

Good thinking. Doesn't look like he's got the VRC epaulets but hard to say for certain. Could also be a private purchase VRC jacket I suppose.

 

[RedRover]

His jacket seems darker than his trousers, and US Army Veterans Reserve Corps jackets were made of the same sky-cloth as the trousers.

 

[CyleKostello]

His jacket seems darker than his trousers, and US Army Veterans Reserve Corps jackets were made of the same sky-cloth as the trousers.

Ah good point. Even accounting for lighting differences the jacket is definitely a darker cloth than the trousers.

That + the lack of epaulets is enough to rule out the VRC in my mind. Assuming there isn't some detail I'm overlooking, far from an expert.

 

[Old Soldier]

In photos of this era, red can be shown as a darker grey - the emulsions did not react well to red light, so that trim may just be artillery red. Any well lit color can appear light grey. It IS trim as it does not follow the folds of the jacket as a shadow would and the light is from the front, not the sides. It you look at the bottom trim, it darkens much more as it goes into shadow so that too may be red. Blues were amost always a light grey.

 

[Package4]

Ah good point. Even accounting for lighting differences the jacket is definitely a darker cloth than the trousers.

That + the lack of epaulets is enough to rule out the VRC in my mind. Assuming there isn't some detail I'm overlooking, far from an expert.

The number of buttons throw me, it looks like a Camp Moore jacket, but the buttons do not conform. I am leaning Federal, due to the number of buttons and their cuff or vest size. CS shells rarely have more than 9 buttons. The trowsers completely lack detail, while the jacket does not, which is also puzzling.

 

[CyleKostello]

The number of buttons throw me, it looks like a Camp Moore jacket, but the buttons do not conform. I am leaning Federal, due to the number of buttons and their cuff or vest size. CS shells rarely have more than 9 buttons. The trowsers completely lack detail, while the jacket does not, which is also puzzling.

Yeah it's definitely a puzzler. 11 buttons on one jacket doesn't strike me as an effective use of the South's limited resources. What gives me pause is that the jacket cloth is markedly lighter than any arty/cav tintypes I've seen and the uniform details don't match the VRC. Of course this could be attributed to the photographer's lighting.

I do also hesitate to completely discount the pencil ID. It'd be one thing if it was a modern ID or if the photo was unequivocally a Federal artillery/cavalryman. But the ID does look period.

 

[Old Soldier]

Is it a volunteer/militia uniform? Alternatively is it a Union uniform, and the photo taken before or just after the split?

 

[CyleKostello]

Is it a volunteer/militia uniform? Alternatively is it a Union uniform, and the photo taken before or just after the split?

In my opinion, it's not a militia uniform. Prewar and postwar militia uniforms were usually a bit more flashy than this. Since it's a tin rather than an ambro it's likely not pre war. I personally lean towards it being a wartime photo.

 

[Package4]

Hi all,

Wanted to get some opinions on this tintype.

It's got a pencil ID to an Alabaman but the jacket (button count and trim) is reminiscent of a Union arty. coat to my eye. Looks like he's got some cap decoration as well. Overall it seems like too many buttons for a confederate.


What gives me pause is that the coat seems a lot lighter than most artilleryman tintypes I've seen (could be a trick of the light/poor equipment). For contrast I've included a pic of an artilleryman from my collection.

The photo became separated from the holder at some point in the past 150 odd years but it definitely belongs with the holder. The subject also has 11 buttons compared to the typical 12 on federal arty/cav jackets. No sign of the neck buttons either.


Also, would the red artillery trim show up as lighter than the jacket, rather than darker?

What do other folks think?

Thanks in advance!

View attachment 463513

View attachment 463514

View attachment 463515

John Clarke

Residence was not listed; Enlisted as a Private (date unknown). He also had service in: "B" Co. AL 2nd Battn Light Artillery SECOND BATTALION OF ARTILLERY Battery A of this battalion, under the command of Capt. Stephen Charpentier, served in the defenses of Mobile until the spring of 1863, when it was attached to General Featherstone's brigade, and afterward did service in Mississippi, known as Charpentier's battery. Battery C served in General Hebert's brigade and lost heavily at the siege of Vicksburg, where its captain, T. K Emanuel, was killed. The remnant of the battery continued to serve under the command of Capt. John D. Haynie in the army of Mobile until the surrender. Battery E seems to have served continuously under the command of Capt. J. B. Hutchisson, at or near Mobile. Source: Confederate Military History, vol. VIII, p. 311​ The Subject is definitely either cavalry or most likely artillery as it appears as if the brass has cross barrels or sabers, not to mention that the jacket is of the style. I am still puzzled by the trowsers, the subject seems to float, from the waist up. ​

 

[CyleKostello]

John Clarke

Residence was not listed; Enlisted as a Private (date unknown). He also had service in: "B" Co. AL 2nd Battn Light Artillery SECOND BATTALION OF ARTILLERY Battery A of this battalion, under the command of Capt. Stephen Charpentier, served in the defenses of Mobile until the spring of 1863, when it was attached to General Featherstone's brigade, and afterward did service in Mississippi, known as Charpentier's battery. Battery C served in General Hebert's brigade and lost heavily at the siege of Vicksburg, where its captain, T. K Emanuel, was killed. The remnant of the battery continued to serve under the command of Capt. John D. Haynie in the army of Mobile until the surrender. Battery E seems to have served continuously under the command of Capt. J. B. Hutchisson, at or near Mobile. Source: Confederate Military History, vol. VIII, p. 311​ The Subject is definitely either cavalry or most likely artillery as it appears as if the brass has cross barrels or sabers, not to mention that the jacket is of the style. I am still puzzled by the trowsers, the subject seems to float, from the waist up.​

Thanks for the research! I had been leaning towards this Clarke before posting it didn't want to influence any posters. Here's what I'd been able to find on Battery B:

The 2nd Alabama Light Artillery Battalion, Companies "A"-"F", was formed at Mobile in January 1862, with five companies later reduced to three. It was attached to the Department of the Gulf, and after January, 1864, the Department of Alabama, Mississippi, and East Louisiana. The unit was stationed at or near Mobile throughout the war and participated in the conflicts at Forts Gaines and Morgan, Spanish Fort, and Fort Blakely. With 64 officers and men, it surrendered on 4 May 1865.

This command was organized at Mobile on 16 October 1861, with men and officers were from that city mustered in on the 31st. The battery remained in the defence of that city untill the spring of 1862 when it moved to Corinth. It was in the Kentucky Campaign losing lightly at Munfordville, and none at Perryville. It suffered severely at Murfreesboro, where it was in Manigault's brigade. At Chickamauga, the battery was engaged without loss; but at Missionary Ridge it lost three guns, and half its force was captured. The other half were distributed in Cobb's (KY) and Mayberry's (TN) battery (January 1864), and served till the end.

 

[CyleKostello]

Hi all,

Found another example of an confederate in an 11 button jacket. No trim on this fellow but an interesting jacket nonetheless. No indication of this reb's state however.

Photo is courtesy of the horsesoldier and is currently listed for sale over there.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

Extremely high waisted trousers- I didn't realize that was an acceptable style in the 1860s.

 

[CyleKostello]

Extremely high waisted trousers- I didn't realize that was an acceptable style in the 1860s.

I've seen a couple photos of soldiers with their pants hiked way up.

Guess if you've only got one or two pairs of pants you're gonna try and keep the cuffs out of the mud.

 

[Old Soldier]

May have been artillery with that jacket.