What type of coat did an officer wear in the field?

[Jeffrey Cohen]

I have to do a federal major impression at an event this spring and was wondering what type of jacket to buy. It turns out I have three choices the officer sack coat, the frock, or shell jacket.
Does anyone know what the prevalent garment was?

[Micah Trent]

I have to do a federal major impression at an event this spring and was wondering what type of jacket to buy. It turns out I have three choices the officer sack coat, the frock, or shell jacket.
Does anyone know what the prevalent garment was?

You really can't go wrong with any of the coats you mentioned. It is whatever you prefer. The frock, in my opinion, is the best to go with. Look through some photos of officers or look at some photos of the group your are protraying and see what they were wearing and go from there. It is mainly up to you.

[Forquer]

I have to do a federal major impression at an event this spring and was wondering what type of jacket to buy. It turns out I have three choices the officer sack coat, the frock, or shell jacket.
Does anyone know what the prevalent garment was?

Jeff -

As officer's purchase their own uniforms, so long as you are within regs, it comes down to what you prefer. Most images I've run across indicate that shells were worn mostly by company grade officers.

YOS,

[CapitolGuards]

I have to do a federal major impression at an event this spring and was wondering what type of jacket to buy. It turns out I have three choices the officer sack coat, the frock, or shell jacket.
Does anyone know what the prevalent garment was?

The default is going to be the dress coat, or frock coat, since that's the one that Uncle Sam says you have to have on hand and wear on the appropriate occasions. The others are optional. If you have one coat for your officer impression, it ought to be the regulation dress coat.

The photographic record indicates that dress coats outnumber sacks by a great number, and shell jackets by an even larger margin. Check out Strayer & Baumgardner's Echoes of Battle books on Chattanooga and Atlanta, these have a wealth of images on federal officers in the field as well as in the studio.

Tom

[huntdaw]

I think if you are doing early war, the frock is certainly a good choice. If you only want one coat you can use it for a later war impression too, but you could also have a private purchase sack coat which would be proper also. That would give you ample leeway to do any period or theater.

[CapitolGuards]

I think if you are doing early war, the frock is certainly a good choice. If you only want one coat you can use it for a later war impression too, but you could also have a private purchase sack coat which would be proper also. That would give you ample leeway to do any period or theater.

Early war, my rear end... The regs didn't change. If all you're going to do is that one specific impression, the sack coat will work for that, but you're limiting yourself. The equivalent for the average infantry reenactor is buying only a state jacket and not having a fatigue blouse or dress coat at hand. Think of it this way -- the private purchase sack coat is the 1860s equivalent of the BDU or battle dress uniform. It's for field work or fatigue duty to provide a little relief for the uniform coat, as well as a little more comfort for the wearer in termperate climates.

This stuff ain't cheap, whether for us or for the officers of the 1860s. The required uniform coat is the dress coat. Now, I have both a dress coat and a sack coat in my kit, and when the circumstances or scenario allows, you can bet your britches I wear the sack coat. But if the budget only allows for one officer uniform, go for the frock coat, since it is appropriate for all circumstances. Contemporary photographs and memoirs show the PEC wear to be frock coats, hands down.

Tom

[GrumpyDave]

Photographic evidence of Field Grade Officers show them by far and away wearing double breasted frock coats with the buttons appropriatly spaced according to your rank, more than any other coat. My guess would be you'd also need the appropriate sash and shoulder boards.

Just my .02

[JEBeedle]

If this is for one event I would go with a privately purchase sack coat rather than a double breasted frock coat unless you really want it. Be prepared that a good double breast frocks start at $750 and different patterns to make it from.
Most of them did wear a db frock coat but some of them would purchase a sack coat. So just like a junior officer that just got promoted to field staff you get to decide.

Have fun.

[bob 125th nysvi]

would be your best choice unless your doing a first person impression and can document something else.

Company officers are going to be 'practical' so a sack coat maybe just fine.

A field grade officer who might have to be in command of a battalion or regiment is going to try and look the part.

A little 'dash' or a conspicous proper military bearing to set an example AND to stand out from everybody else.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

[JEBeedle]

would be your best choice unless your doing a first person impression and can document something else.

Company officers are going to be 'practical' so a sack coat maybe just fine.

A field grade officer who might have to be in command of a battalion or regiment is going to try and look the part.

A little 'dash' or a conspicous proper military bearing to set an example AND to stand out from everybody else.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

Agreed on first impression and to stand out from others, if it were me I would get a DB frock coat and look my best.

Most company officers were not 'practical' soldiers in fact some of them would dress better than their commanding officers. It is well documented that field grade officer wore sack coats just as much as the line officers.

[Sgt_Pepper]

Photographic evidence of Field Grade Officers show them by far and away wearing double breasted frock coats with the buttons appropriately spaced according to your rank, more than any other coat. My guess would be you'd also need the appropriate sash and shoulder boards.

Just my .02

Just keep in mind that the officers were more likely to get "dressed up" for the photographer, because they often (usually?) had something other than their everyday outfit to put on - the men had only what they were wearing. My feeling is that, especially toward the end of the War, more officers were wearing privately purchased blouses than frock coats in the field.

[GrumpyDave]

Let me be more clear in my statement.

Photographic evidence of Field Grade Officers, TAKEN DURING THE CIVIL WAR, IN THE FIELD, show them by far and away wearing double breasted frock coats with the buttons appropriatly spaced according to your rank, more than any other coat.

That's better. Well, at least I feel better.

[Frenchie]

Dave, let me risk provoking your grumpiness and that of Sgt. Pepper by jumping into this exchange.

Officers frequently had servants, baggage, changes of uniform and, when nothing more pressing than camp routine was going on, the leisure to get into their best outfits. They may have told the photographer to wait until they'd changed into their frocks, and being in charge at that time and place, they generally got their way. It took a lot of time to set up for a shot in the first place, giving them time to change.

I'm not saying you're wrong and he's right, just saying the man may have a point.

[CivilWarBuff1863]

I was going to assume a Frock coat since I seen so many of them in the pictures and in the paintings. Maybe they wore frocks on the field and other ones in a parade.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

I second Joe Beedle's advice, above. While a lot of photos of officers in the field appear to show field officers in double-breasted frocks, there were certainly junior field officers who affected sack coats (one is included in "Echoes of Glory/Union"), and for what it's worth, many photos of field officers IN THE FIELD show staff officers (usually clusered around a general), not regimental field officers. It seems reasonable to assume, in the absence of "conclusive" or "exhaustive" evidence, that staff officers who were field officers tended to wear double-breasted coats, while regimental field officers may--MAY--have opted for attire that made them "blend in" somewhat with their men, so that they were less-obvious targets.

It's interesting to view the words of then-Lt. John Mead Gould of the 10th Maine (then Army of Virginia) at Cedar Mountain (August, 1862). Gould observed that officers wearing distinctive headgear tended to get shot more often and quicker than officers who's headgear resembled their men's headwear. I would imagine a similar logic applied to coats: a double-breasted frock on a mounted officer (field officers were typically mounted, whether as staff officers or as regimental field officers) would "really stand out" as a target instead of a more-ordinary-looking sack coat on the same mounted officer.

Less-experienced officers may have been more interested in appearance, while veterans in the line (including officers) probably tended toward less-distinctive attire and "finery".

For what it's worth, I'm not familiar with the term "shell jacket"--does it have a Civil War providence? I freely admit that perhaps it does and I've just not heard the term in period correspondence or documents.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

For what it's worth here...

There's really not a whole lot of images of soldiers in the field, compared to "portrait" type photos. While I don't know what photos Grumpy's referring to, the first and second sets of images that come to my mind of field officers "in the field" are all from the Overland Campaign, viz.

1. The Massponax Church Photos - Just south of Spotsylvania Court House, a series of images taken in the churchyard in May 1864 shows Grant and Meade and their staff officers, with double-breasted frocks being by far the most common type of coat on field and general officers.

2. The Cold Harbor Phtoos - After the big assaults of June 3, 1864, Grant and Lee occupied the Cold Harbor lines for nine or ten more days of relative quiet. During this time, numerous photos were taken of Army of the Potomac general officers and their staffs, with probably the most famous (but by no means the only one) being the image of Second Corps Generals Hancock, Barlow, Gibbon, and Birney. In all the photos from this period that I have seen, the field (staff) officers are predominantly wearing double-breasted frocks.

The common theme of these two sets of images (which are the first ones that come most quickly to MY mind, and maybe not yours :) ) is that they are pretty much showing GENERALS and THEIR STAFFS, which--and I apologize for stating the incredibly obvious--are NOT the same as regimental officers.

What type of coat did regimental field officers usually wear in the field? I think more evidence is needed before a conclusion can be drawn here.

[Ephraim_Zook]

For what it's worth, I'm not familiar with the term "shell jacket"--does it have a Civil War providence? I freely admit that perhaps it does and I've just not heard the term in period correspondence or documents.

Hi Kevin,

From Scott's Military Dictionary, 1861.

"The tunic of the French infantry soldier lasts three years and a half, the shell jacket two years, the great coat three years, and the trowsers one year. In the Sardinian and Belgian armies the great coat is intended to last eight years."

Now, we don't know if the term "shell jacket" made the trans-atlantic trip and attached itself to an American jacket or whether Col Scott was referring to a specific European design not implemented here.

Ron Myzie
Reenactment Nutrition Specialist

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Thanks Ron! That's more than I knew before. :)

[cosgood]

Guys,

Interesting subject. Photo evidence is very difficult to use, most shots were staged shots. Most officers had 2 coats, one for dress and one for field use. When looking at uniform collections and groupings of officers uniforms, most of the time ( if the complete grouping is there) you will see a frock, and then a commercial sack coat ( many times the sack coat has no rank on it) but thats because it was a later war uniform, and the reason its still around. Check out Echoes of Glory, Major Samuel Lintons uniform on page 115, then turn to page 119. Linton also had a commercial sack, and it happens to be the coat he was wearing when wounded.

Plain and simple, first what year are you portraying? By 1863, many officers opted for a plainer looking coat, to blend in with the men, not stick out. This is even evident in 1862, as kevin posted above. Anyhow there is really no one diffinative answer, if you say one thing, you will find another referance to the other. As it was back then, choose what uniform you think fits you. Officers items were privately purchased, what the regulations call for is not always what they did. Maybe in the regulars regiments, but volunteer regiments had there own interpretation.

Myself personally I prefer the more non descript jacket or blouse for field use, and keep the frock for Dress Parade, garrison duty etc..

Hope this helps,

[CapitolGuards]

Having more of a western interest, the references I use most commonly in making these sorts are Larry Strayer's and Richard Baumgardner's works, Echoes of Battle: The Struggle for Chattanooga, Echoes of Battle: The Atlanta Campaign, and Kennesaw Mountain: July 1864. Each of these has a wealth of mostly non-overlapping images of federals in the field and the studio, and make for a pretty fair look at the Army of the Cumberland and the Army of the Tennessee in mid-war. I rarely wander east of the Big Scary Mountains, so am not as concerned about what those paper-collared McClellanites were up to before Mr. Grant was sent to straighten 'em out.

And as an old regular and long-time reserve officer in a more recent time period, my opinion, based on custom and the parsimony with which Uncle Sam opens his purse to his nephews, you need to acquire the have-to-have regulation gear before you go for the optional, nice-to-have stuff.

As previously mentioned, I have both a dress coat and a commercial sack in my kit. I find the sack coat more comfortable in the field and at times when our "hog-killin' clothes" are appropriate, but to start doing the impression on a regular basis, get the regulation gear first. The commercial sack is more flexible for a part-time, re-enactor's point of view since in most cases all you need to do is swap out the shoulder straps or subdued insignia (the use of which is also depicted in Strayer & Baumgardner). I got both of mine from Mr. Sekela via the Skilletlicker site, and cost-wise, over about a year or two's time, they were about the same. A good commercial sack ain't cheap, neither.

But the basic question was, "what coat is most appropriate for a field grade officer?" I'll stand by my response, "the regulation coat." After all, it ain't just about you... you set the example not only for the enlisted men in your charge, but also for your junior officers.

Tom
6th Arkansas
37th Illinois

[JEBeedle]

The best and worst part of being an officer is that you get to chose what you want to wear because you would buy what you could afford at the time of your promotion.
Most officers would eventually get that new tailor Double Breasted Frock. It just took some time.
Like I have said before, too bad they didn't have digital cameras :D

[JEBeedle]

Dave, let me risk provoking your grumpiness and that of Sgt. Pepper by jumping into this exchange.

Officers frequently had servants, baggage, changes of uniform and, when nothing more pressing than camp routine was going on, the leisure to get into their best outfits. They may have told the photographer to wait until they'd changed into their frocks, and being in charge at that time and place, they generally got their way. It took a lot of time to set up for a shot in the first place, giving them time to change.

I'm not saying you're wrong and he's right, just saying the man may have a point.

We also have to remember that most field officers had horses which made it easier to carry more things.

"What happen to your horse Colonel?" Boys from the regiment.
"Oh, poor Butcher Boy is dead, he died for his country. I shall never forgive him for serving me in such a shabby matter." Col. James George, 2nd Minnesota

[Kevin O'Beirne]

I'll stand by my response, "the regulation coat." After all, it ain't just about you... you set the example not only for the enlisted men in your charge, but also for your junior officers.

So far, at least regarding "what did they wear back then?" on this thread, I'm hearing more anecdotal opinions instead of facts. For example, "Most officers had two coats," and "It's best to stick with the 'regulation coat'" (whatever that means). We can all offer an opinion on the historical record, but what does the record say? What do photos of regimental field officers in the field (at different points in the war) tend to show?

[terry sorchy]

Jefferey,
Kevin is right. This is'nt going to win me any awards but here it is. You are going to receive more different answers here than you know what to do with and probably go to bed more confused in the end than before. Find out if you dont already know what regiment you are portraying at this time. Try to find a photo of the Major of the regiment. You will have your answer then. Otherwise you will just get opinions (good ones, but opinions). Let history speak for it self. It usually is the best answer.
Terry Sorchy

[JEBeedle]

So far, at least regarding "what did they wear back then?" on this thread, I'm hearing more anecdotal opinions instead of facts. For example, "Most officers had two coats," and "It's best to stick with the 'regulation coat'" (whatever that means). We can all offer an opinion on the historical record, but what does the record say? What do photos of regimental field officers in the field (at different points in the war) tend to show?

I agree with you Kevin,
Here are two photo that I am sure most of you have seen. You will notice that these photo's was taken during the Peninsular campaign so this is early war. Some of them are wearing frock coats and some of them are wearing sack coats.

1. Westover Landing, Va. Col. James H. Childs (standing) with other officers of the 4th Pennsylvania Cavalry. Photograph from the main eastern theater of war, the Peninsular Campaign, May-August 1862
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/I?cwar:9:./temp/~ammem_W8VS::displayType=1:m856sd=cwpb:m856sf=0385 2:@@@

2.Fair Oaks, Va., vicinity. Brigade officers of the Horse Artillery commanded by Lt. Col. William Hays. 1862
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/I?cwar:39:./temp/~ammem_D3rQ::displayType=1:m856sd=cwpb:m856sf=0102 2:@@@

[KeystoneGuard]

I'm sure I'm repeating these other gentlemen but do research and more research and then after you think you've done enough start over again. I've been portraying an officer (normally a Captain), for the past 3 years. I have spent countless hours researching what they wore. You may find that it'll drive you nutz but that's the fun part of our hobby RESEARCH! In all my time reading I have found that most Field Officer's wore frock coats with the approriate spacing of buttons and also wore private purchase sack coats. You'll even find a couple double breasted private purchase jackets if you look hard enough at pictures. I do not have the picture in hand but I have found a Colonel wearing said jacket. (This next part is a little off topic but bear with me. I am making a point) I started portraying Gen. Francis Barlow, as was mentioned in another post. He was a different kind of general. 1st he was young and did not conform to having a beard as so many generals did during the time, also he did not normally wear a frock coat. He was most often seen (and I stand corrected if anyone has done the research) in a private purchase sack coat and a thread-bare kepi. With that being said I wear the private pruchase jacket when portraying him, even to "formal" events due to him being how can I say, a "non-conformist" to military regualtions, although he was a diciplinarian. BUT ENOUGH OF THAT, BACK ONTO THE TOPIC AT HAND: It was also said that they "dressed up" for photos, this is all correct according to everything I've read. Your best bet like I mentioned before is to research the role and decide what will work for your impression. Try not to look at the price of the db frock, your eyes may fall out of your head, but to provide an accurate impression will be most beneficial.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

You'll even find a couple double breasted private purchase jackets if you look hard enough at pictures.


I'm not sure what the above means, because ALL officer uniforms were "private purchase". There wasn't any such thing as "army issue" officer uniforms.

Regarding Barlow, in the book, With Grant and Meade from Wilderness to Appomattox, Col. Theodore Lyman provides some well-written and highly amusing descriptions of Francis Barlow (among others), including the famous, "He appeared as a highly-independent newsboy," and said that Barlow's sword was "a huge cavalry sabre". I recall readnig somewhere once, and frankly I can never recall where, that Barlow allegedly used a shock from an electric battery to wake himself up each morning.

Another good source on Barlow is Diary of the Union Lady by Maria Lydig Daley (wife of the famous NYC judge Daley), who was very good friends with Barlow's wife and has numerous anecdotes of Barlow.

Lyman's book is available at virtually any Borders or Barnes & Noble, but Maria Lydig Daley's book can be much less-easy to find.

[KeystoneGuard]

Kevin,
I apologzie for the vague info on the jacket. I meant a double breasted officer's sack coat. Thank you for the info on Barlow. I will be sure to look for these books.

[Busterbuttonboy]

I agree with Kevin, lets get some facts an photos in here....
1861 U.S. Army Regulations:
Uniforms & Equipage
Assorted Articles

ARTICLE XII
ARTICLE LI - UNIFORM, DRESS, AND HORSE EQUIPMENTS
COAT
For Commissioned Officers
1442. All officers shall wear a frock-coat of dark blue cloth, the skirt to extend from two-thirds to three-fourths of the distance from the top of the hip to the bent of the knee; single breasted for Captains and Lieutenants; double-breasted for all other grades.

1445. For A Colonel--the same as for a Major-General, except that there will be only seven buttons in each row on the breast, placed at equal distances; collar and cuffs of the same color and material as the coat.
1446. For a Lieutenant-Colonel--the same as for a Colonel.
1447. For a Major--the same as for a Colonel.

Photo Three:
[Fort Monroe, Va. Officers of 3d Pennsylvania Heavy Artillery].
CREATED/PUBLISHED
1864 December.

Photo Two:
Brandy Station, Capt Robertson-1st Brigade Horse Artillery..

Photo One:
[Arlington, Va. Officers of Company F, 2d New York Artillery at Fort C. F. Smith].Smith, William Morris, photographer.
CREATED/PUBLISHED
1865 August.

Photo Four:
[Culpeper, Va. Gen Robert O. Tyler and staff of the Artillery Reserve; another view].O'Sullivan, Timothy H., 1840-1882, photographer.
CREATED/PUBLISHED
1863 September.

I need not go into discussion, we shall let the photos, text and our understanding of these fellers rational in the feild, dictate our impressions of them.
Most Respectfully
Drew Gruber