Federal officer's sack coat

[rcoddington]

I am interested in obtaining a top-quality federal officer's sack coat — authentic, museum grade, hand-sewn if possible — and am looking for recommendations. Any help and/or guidance would be much appreciated.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

A number of vendors provide these and it may be worth checking the AC Forum's suggested vendor list for this item.

I obtained my commissioned officer sack coat in 2004 from Nick Sekela via Skillet Licker, and have been pleased with it ever since, although it was a bit pricey ($450 in January 2004; a comrade obtained a darned good officer sack coat from another "recognized quality vendor" about six months later for about half the price I paid). Here's a photo that includes "the jacket"; "the jacket" with me inside it is at the right side of this image:

http://www.columbiarifles.org/Images/2004/20044c.jpg

[1stTexas]

Take a look at what The Quartemaster Shop ( www.quartermastershop.com ) has to offer in their good looking on-line catalog. Especially look at their testimonials and show case. I have purchased a variety of Confederate kepis, shirts, trousers, and a shell jacket from them and I was pleased with the form and fit. They are not economy garments but they are right, including a variety of buttons, colors, fabrics, and hand sewn options.

[VaTrooper]

I wouldn't call Quartermaster Shop "Top-Quality", "Authentic", or "Museum Grade."

[TimKindred]

Comrade,

I concur. Nick Sekela has an outstanding item. I would also highly reccomend Chris Daley. Chris's coat is copied from an original ID'd Officer's commercial sack coat, and it would be worth your time to peruse his documentation at his website.

Either man will sell you an excellent article, and the only other one I would not hesitate to reccomend is Lynn Bull. His work is also quite good.

Respects,

[Hardtimes]

I am interested in obtaining a top-quality federal officer's sack coat — authentic, museum grade, hand-sewn if possible — and am looking for recommendations. Any help and/or guidance would be much appreciated.

By any chance are you the same Ron Coddington who writes the column in Civil War News called Faces of War?
It's one of the reasons I still subcribe.
Best wishes
Bill O'Dea
Salt Boiler mess (http://rugglesrag.com/salt_boiler_mess.htm)

[David Meister]

why woulnt some people here consider qm shop items to be authentic
not to hijack the thread but Ive seen some of qm shops items the make the best kepis out there in my opinion.

[Sgt_Pepper]

I'm sure everyone has read this and has only forgotten it for a moment... right? From the "Sticky" at the top of the forum:

Since there's been some questions raised about this issue, I will reiterate our long standing policies.

The basic rule of thumb is the Golden Rule. Would you want someone to apply the process and attitude you are proclaiming to you and your work?

More specifically: negative comments on vendor's service, shipping policies, cost structure, personal characteristics, etc. will be deleted on sight. They are irrelevant to the equipment under review and impossible for us to verify. They also could pose problems for the forums themselves and I can't allow that.

Factual reviews of gear, comparing it with -originals- (not competitors), and reasonable discussions of those reviews, are not only tolerated but greatly desired here. Providing images and specific references aids others in evaluating your statements. Research that others can verify would be the most valuable.

To be clear, reviews by vendors of their own or a competitor's gear are not allowed. While it might be good in theory, in practical terms it simply generates more heat than light.

That's it for now. If you have questions, please feel free to post them to this thread or email me privately.

Provost

[rcoddington]

Hi Bill,
I am, and appreciate your interest in Faces of War. It's a real labor of love for me to research and write each month.
Best regards,
Ron

[1stTexas]

I will not buy from any vendor that does not think enough of their merchadise to include a photograph of the product in their on-line catalog. I will also not buy from a vendor that avoids custom made on-line sales and prefers to sell "one-size fits all" merchandise at events. I have been snake bit by those guys enough.

I don't care how well they come recommended.

[Ken]

why woulnt some people here consider qm shop items to be authentic
not to hijack the thread but Ive seen some of qm shops items the make the best kepis out there in my opinion.
Dave,

No offense, but Quartermaster Shop isn't in the same league as say Greg Starbuck, Don Smith, Dirty Billy to name a few when it comes to making an accurate kepi. They aren't bad, but far from the best out there. My 2 cents. If you don't believe me check the websites for the same.

[CapitolGuards]

Take a look at what The Quartemaster Shop ( www.quartermastershop.com ) has to offer in their good looking on-line catalog. Especially look at their testimonials and show case. I have purchased a variety of Confederate kepis, shirts, trousers, and a shell jacket from them and I was pleased with the form and fit. They are not economy garments but they are right, including a variety of buttons, colors, fabrics, and hand sewn options.

The Quartermaster Shop has differing levels of quality... with the average being somewhat low. For example, the costume-quality mainstream uniforms sold by Fall Creek are Quartermaster Shop products, and are about typical of their work.

I do have a Confederate officer's frock in my "collection" that I bought second-hand, and which was a custom order. Surprisingly, it turned out to be very good, and compares favorably with an original coat in a local museum.

If you're looking for a good museum quality officer's sack coat, I would second Kevin's recommendation of the Sekela product. I have one of these, too, and in addition to the qualities already bragged about, it's very comfortable and serviceable in the field. It would be my first choice if I were looking for one of those coats again.

Tom

[Kevin O'Beirne]

What some may notice about the officer sack coat in the image compared to the other fellows' enlisted fatigue blouses is that the officer sack coat:

1. Is much longer; almost frock-coat length.

2. It has pockets on the outside--a very handy feature.

3. It has very "blousy" upper sleeves, like the originals. An enlisted fatigue blouse has sleeves of virtually uniform width. The officer coat's cuffs are much smaller than the upper sleeves.

4. The officer coat as a larger collar than the enlisted coats.

5. The officer coat has velvet cuffs with functional buttons; enlisted fatigue jackets have no buttons, no velvet, and just a small "vent" in the cuff.

What may not be quite as apparent in the image is that the officer coat is of broadcloth, not unlike a frock coat, and the enlisted jackets are a relatively coarse flannel.

That said, at the event pictured (Pickett's Mill GA) a spectator looked at the boys and me--my sword was lying on the ground several feet away--and inquired as to why my belt buckle was different from the men's. Otherwise, to the spectator, at a glance, it looked like I was a private with a different belt. I think that was the idea of a commissioned officer attempting to "blend in" with the men to avoid being a so-called "bullet sponge".

[Kevin O'Beirne]

I will also not buy from a vendor that avoids custom made on-line sales and prefers to sell "one-size fits all" merchandise at events. I have been snake bit by those guys enough. I don't care how well they come recommended.

For what it's worth, and for informational purposes only, that's how enlisted uniforms were made and issued during the war: four sizes (with the largest not being that large!). The men were simply issued an item of clothing, and expected to trade among themselves to obtain one that more-or-less fit them. There's some interesting first-person accounts from enlisted men who were "large" (often meaning, tall) who had a real problem with getting issue clothing that even remotely fit them.

Commissioned officers, of course, privately purchased all their own uniforms so the sizing standard probably did not applly as much to officers.

[bob 125th nysvi]

an NJ Sekela hat and a WW sack coat both are excellent products. Both websites can be accessed from the AC forum's approved vendor list.

That being said there are a number of excellent vendors so shop around and find the one that suits you best. Many of the better vendors attend the better events so you can try the products on and see them for yourself.

But remember it should be appropriate for your impression. So for example a newly promoted Lt probably doesn't have the money or time to get a tailored coat. Heck he might even have just taken off the stripes and put some braid. So think it ALL the way through before you spend anything.

[flattop32355]

Everyone has favorite sutlers/vendors, often for reasons that other reenactors cannot fathom. To expect anything else is to deny human nature.

The problem comes, not when one says whom they like, but when they go the route of "this one is better than that one" and the like.

Check with folks you trust. Check yourself. Then decide. If you're happy with it a year after you buy it, it probably was a good thing to do.

[JEBeedle]

One thing to remember that a officer sack coat is a commercial sack meaning that it was made by a sutler or from a tailor, it is was not issued by the army so their was a lot of different fatigue blouses worn.
Most of the photo's that I have seen most officers wear fatigue blouses are the same length as frock coats or a inch or two longer than a enlisted man blouse.
I personally have the Daley Lieutenant Star jacket. It is made out of Haynesworth Broad cloth which is a little heavy for a blouse but it period correct. Sekela always does a good job on any of his coats.

Have Fun

[Pvt Schnapps]

Not to change the subject so much as to allow for some variety, at what point in the war would you gentlemen consider it appropriate for a line officer to wear an enlisted blouse?

A quick search of my desk has left me unable to find the order allowing officers to purchase clothing from Quartermasters, but I believe it belonged to the same generation that allowed subdued insignia and purchases of food from the ACS.

[TimKindred]

Comrade,

The Authorisation for Officers to purchase enlisted clothing while on campaign was specific as to what could be drawn, and did not include the blouse. It included shoes and/or boots, shirts, trousers and overcoat. These could be purchased from the quartermaster only if sufficient stores were on hand to allow for it.

I'll find the source today, although it is in the revised 1861 regulations. I just don't have my copy to hand at the moment.

Personally, I would not find it acceptable for an officer to wear an enlisted blouse at anytime without specific documentation to that unit/time/place, etc. I put it up there with jaguar trousers and coon bones. :)

Respects,

[Pvt Schnapps]

"When I had left camp that morning I had not expected so soon the result that was then taking place, and consequently was in rough garb. I was without a sword, as I usually was when on horseback on the field, and wore a soldier's blouse for a coat, with the shoulder straps of my rank to indicate to the army who I was. When I went into the house I found General Lee. We greeted each other, and after shaking hands took our seats. I had my staff with me, a good portion of whom were in the room during the whole of the interview."

That's just the first quote that comes to mind that leads me to wonder whether your statement can be entirely correct.

[tompritchett]

That's just the first quote that comes to mind that leads me to wonder whether your statement can be entirely correct.

Obviously that quote was from Gen. Grant?

[Pvt Schnapps]

Obviously that quote was from Gen. Grant?

Yes. It's from his Memoirs, but you can find it online at, among other places: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/SurrenderatAppomattox.htm

I think it's significant that Grant uses the phrase "soldier's blouse" rather than "sack coat", which was a common enough term at the time and would allow us more leeway to interpret his garment as, say, a private purchase sack.

I'm sure others have come across similar statements by other officers in the field. Most photographs will show officers in frocks with full straps, but the use of enlisted fatigue clothing as a form of battledress, with or without insignia, appears in many journals and collections of letters.

I beleive that the limitation on officers purchasing clothing that Tim refers to applied to their purchase of clothing for their servants. But even then there's plenty of photographic evidence to indicate that this either didn't prevent such purchases, or that servants managed to obtain discarded clothing.

The purpose of allowing officers to buy clothing from the QM, and food from the ACS (first only for cash, then on the basis of a receipt), developed from the practical necessities of campaigning, combined with delays in pay, especially in the west. And if you allow an officer to buy clothes from the QM at all, you're pretty much ensuring that he'll buy enlisted clothing, since that's about all the QMD procured.

[TimKindred]

Comrades,

Grant recalled he was wearing a "soldier's blouse". Many have erroneously taken that to mean he was wearing an enlisted man's sack coat.

In the memoirs of Colonel John Rawlins, Grant's Chief of Staff, he remarks about the entire staff, Grant included, going in together to purchase blouses from a uniform maker in New York. They were much better adapted for field use than their dress coats, being both more comfortable and cooler. Regardless, the receipt for these coats is located in Grant's official corredpondence folder(s) in the National Archives. If you look here:

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/civil-war-pictures/photography/general-grant-staff.htm

You can see Rawlins, Comstock, Morgan, Parker, and Babcock wearing their blouses. One might also notice the low-quarter civilian shoes that Comstock is wearing :)

Respects,

[Robert A Mosher]

Charles Carleton Coffin, Army Correspondent of the Boston Journal, described his first meeting with General Grant in Cairo, Illinois in his 1866 book, “Four Years of Fighting”


“Having credentials from the Secretary of War, I entered the headquarters of the commanding officer, and found a man of medium stature, thick-set, with blue eyes, and brown-beard closely cropped, sitting at a desk. He was smoking a meerschaum. He wore a plan blue blouse, without any insignia of rank. His appearance was clerkly. General McClellan, in Washington, commanded in state, surrounded by brilliant staffs, men in fine broadcloth, gold braid, plumed hats, and wearing clanking sabres. Orderlies and couriers were usually numerous at headquarters.

“Is General Grant in?” was the question directed to the clerk in the corner.

“Yes, sir,” said the man, removing his meerschaum from his mouth, and spitting with unerring accuracy into a spitoon by his side.

“Will you be kind enough to give this letter to him.”

But the clerk, instead of carrying it into an adjoining room, to present it to the commander-in-chief, opened it, ran his eye rapidly over the contents, and said, “I am happy to make your acquaintance, sir. Colonel Webster will give you a pass.”

Such was my first interview with General Grant. I have seen him many times since—in the hour of victory, at Donelson; in the shadow of the cloud, after Pittsburg Landing; during the fearful days of the Wilderness; in the last great hours of triumph, with Lee and his army paroled prisoners of war; and there has ever been the same quiet, gentlemanly deportment.”


Mr. Coffin established a relationship with Grant at this point that enabled him to approach the general on many occasions throughout the war, right through to the fall of Richmond. His writings included a number of similar descriptions of these encounters.

Robert A. Mosher

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

A couple officer coats that appear to be more "enlisted" looking than most.

http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/hires/officersacks/humphreycoat.jpg
Gen. Humphreys

http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/hires/officersacks/coch1.jpg

http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/hires/officersacks/coch3.jpg

http://www.myrtle-avenue.com/hires/officersacks/coch4.jpg
BG Cochrane

[toptimlrd]

Comrade,

The Authorisation for Officers to purchase enlisted clothing while on campaign was specific as to what could be drawn, and did not include the blouse. It included shoes and/or boots, shirts, trousers and overcoat. These could be purchased from the quartermaster only if sufficient stores were on hand to allow for it.

I'll find the source today, although it is in the revised 1861 regulations. I just don't have my copy to hand at the moment.

Personally, I would not find it acceptable for an officer to wear an enlisted blouse at anytime without specific documentation to that unit/time/place, etc. I put it up there with jaguar trousers and coon bones. :)

Respects,

Tim,

Remember Grant apologized to lee for wearing an enlisted sack coat when they met at Appomattox. One example only but I am sure there are other examples.

[TimKindred]

Comrade,

With respects, I would ask you to see my post above regarding the "blouse".

Grant apologised for wearing a "blouse" as opposed to a dress coat, which Lee was wearing. It was a simple courtesy, but historians have misread these comments. It's the same sort of thing as when, in his book "The Passing of the Armies", Joshua Chamberlain recalls giving the order to his old regiments to "Carry Arms"as the Confederate columns approached for the formal surrender. Well, he didn't actually tell them to come to "Carry Arms". He had them brought to "Shoulder Arms". Chamberlain was writing after the manual had been rewritten by Emory Upton, and the old "Shoulder Arms" was renamed "Carry Arms". The General didn't want his younger audience, familiar with the new manual, to be confused, so he wrote using the new terms. The key to understanding Chamberlain's account is to include the rest of his statement, which is often excluded. He says "...Carry Arms, the soldier's salute." (emphasis mine). The "soldier's salute" is "shoulder Arms" when in formation, and the officer then salutes for the entire command.

Grant simply refers to wearing a "blouse", and photographic and written documentation proves that as being a commercial blouse, not an enlisted man's government-issue blouse.

It's one of those "Yeah, but....." things where what they said is not what people think they said :)

Respects,

[toptimlrd]

Comrade,

With respects, I would ask you to see my post above regarding the "blouse".

Grant apologised for wearing a "blouse" as opposed to a dress coat, which Lee was wearing. It was a simple courtesy, but historians have misread these comments. It's the same sort of thing as when, in his book "The Passing of the Armies", Joshua Chamberlain recalls giving the order to his old regiments to "Carry Arms"as the Confederate columns approached for the formal surrender. Well, he didn't actually tell them to come to "Carry Arms". He had them brought to "Shoulder Arms". Chamberlain was writing after the manual had been rewritten by Emory Upton, and the old "Shoulder Arms" was renamed "Carry Arms". The General didn't want his younger audience, familiar with the new manual, to be confused, so he wrote using the new terms. The key to understanding Chamberlain's account is to include the rest of his statement, which is often excluded. He says "...Carry Arms, the soldier's salute." (emphasis mine). The "soldier's salute" is "shoulder Arms" when in formation, and the officer then salutes for the entire command.

Grant simply refers to wearing a "blouse", and photographic and written documentation proves that as being a commercial blouse, not an enlisted man's government-issue blouse.

It's one of those "Yeah, but....." things where what they said is not what people think they said :)

Respects,

Tim,

Unfortunately I posted that before I read the next post of yours. I will need to research it but I am almost certain I read a period historical account that Grant was indeed wearing an enlisted man's coat with only his General's straps to identify him. I could be wrong as it has been a number of years since I read it and may be remembering it wrong but alas that is the nature of the old memory.

[Ken]

Everyone has favorite sutlers/vendors, often for reasons that other reenactors cannot fathom. To expect anything else is to deny human nature.

The problem comes, not when one says whom they like, but when they go the route of "this one is better than that one" and the like.

Check with folks you trust. Check yourself. Then decide. If you're happy with it a year after you buy it, it probably was a good thing to do.
I would agree with you to a certain extent. I'll go one further and say that your favorite sutler can change as you become more educated in the finer details of what makes something more accurately constructed etc. It has certainly happened to me over the years as I had an opportunity to examine original artifacts and talk to people with more experience then me. The one thing I've noticed, which continues to puzzle me, is there are many folks in this hobby who don't seem to notice the finer details that many times makes the difference between an accurate reproduction and a costume. I actually heard a reenactor with a particularly bad forage cap (wrong material, color, missing the welt around the crown, etc) comment after looking at an original in this museum that he was very satisfied with the cap he bought because it matched the one he was looking at very well in his opinion. I was amazed by the comment because his cap, in my opinion, wasn't even close to what he was looking at. It's as if he and I we were looking at two different caps. It's never my intent to put another sutler down, but I will always point someone in the right direction to help them improve their impression if I can.

[RJSamp]

Comrade,

It's one of those "Yeah, but....." things where what they said is not what people think they said :)

Respects,

You mean that the tune for the Star Spangled Banner was not a rowdy, bawdy, drunken, carousing, fraternity song bellowed out by trollops and patrons of saloons, bars, and taverns? i.e. a drinking song

Context is everything.

[flattop32355]

I actually heard a reenactor with a particularly bad forage cap (wrong material, color, missing the welt around the crown, etc) comment after looking at an original in this museum that he was very satisfied with the cap he bought because it matched the one he was looking at very well in his opinion. I was amazed by the comment because his cap, in my opinion, wasn't even close to what he was looking at. It's as if he and I we were looking at two different caps.

Here's were we all need to realize that not everyone sees, and, in more instances than we'd like to admit, is able to see, such differences.

Some of us (the generic "us"), on any given item, are details-challenged, while others of us can spot the small stuff without even trying. Some folks think algebra is hard, while others think calculus is moderately easy. Same principle here: Some are wired to see, others not. It's not an excuse, but it happens too often to not have some truth to it.

Those who can't see the finer (and sometimes coarser) differences can't understand what the big fuss is all about, while those who do see them can't fathom how they can be overlooked by some many. It isn't always (though it sometimes is) intentional.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Comrades,

Grant recalled he was wearing a "soldier's blouse". Many have erroneously taken that to mean he was wearing an enlisted man's sack coat.

In the memoirs of Colonel John Rawlins, Grant's Chief of Staff, he remarks about the entire staff, Grant included, going in together to purchase blouses from a uniform maker in New York. They were much better adapted for field use than their dress coats, being both more comfortable and cooler. Regardless, the receipt for these coats is located in Grant's official corredpondence folder(s) in the National Archives. If you look here:

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/civil-war-pictures/photography/general-grant-staff.htm

You can see Rawlins, Comstock, Morgan, Parker, and Babcock wearing their blouses. One might also notice the low-quarter civilian shoes that Comstock is wearing :)

Respects,

Tim, that photo was taken at headquarters in June, 1864. I find it a little difficult to accept that as proof that Grant did not wear what he said he wore on that special April day in 1865. For what it's worth, I also suspect that Comstock wasn't wearing those shoes at Appomattox, either.

Marc's pictures show pretty clearly that, if officers did not wear enlisted sack coats, they did from time to time find something pretty near identical to wear. Other photos will show the same, and journal entries -- particularly from later in the war -- will from time to time confirm it.

[TimKindred]

Comrade,

Very well then. Shall we then take as verbatim, not to be challenged, the words of General Grant as to what he was wearing then, even though at the time he was writing these words he was in the last stages of throat cancer and using ever-increasing dosages of pain killers?

If we are to accept his statement as absolute proof of his wearing an issue, enlisted fatigue blouse, then are we not also obliged to take without question the words of other soldiers who served? You know, all those after-the-fact stories about ragged rebels, barefoot in the snow, with grand-daddy's squirrel rifle, casting their own bullets by the fire and using powder horns and "whatever they could scrounge up"?

It behooves us to treat Grant's memoirs with the same critical eye as we treat all other memoirs. Meanings change and are nuanced based upon the time and experiences of the speaker, the reader, and the vernacular, the slang of the moment. If I were to describe my own experiences of 10 or even 20 years ago, I would not use the same style of speaking today as I did then. Someone of the 1860's saying "he's a very cool soldier" is not meaning the same as someone today reciting the same line. In the 1860's, the speaker would have meant "icy" or 'calculating", whereas today it would mean "hip" or "kewl" or whatever the current slang would dictate.

What is known, for certain, is that Grant owned what we would today refer to as a "commerical blouse" or a "private purchase sack coat", etc. I will still argue that that coat is what he was wearing on 9 April. It is all well and good for us to romantically view him as the humble man in an enlisted coat accepting the surrender of the ANV from an impeccably-clad Lee.

That, however, is as much a myth as the "ragged rugged barefoot rebel". It is worked and repeated and brought out often in order to show how the "solid, blue-collar" machinists from the North destroyed the southern gentry, the "new aristocracy". It is a sham, a myth, but still has many adherants. :D

Respects,

[TheQM]

In looking at that photo of General Cochrane, I was pleased to note that I'm not the only one who suffers from a low riding sword belt!

[Pvt Schnapps]

Comrade,

Very well then. Shall we then take as verbatim, not to be challenged, the words of General Grant as to what he was wearing then, even though at the time he was writing these words he was in the last stages of throat cancer and using ever-increasing dosages of pain killers?

If we are to accept his statement as absolute proof of his wearing an issue, enlisted fatigue blouse, then are we not also obliged to take without question the words of other soldiers who served? You know, all those after-the-fact stories about ragged rebels, barefoot in the snow, with grand-daddy's squirrel rifle, casting their own bullets by the fire and using powder horns and "whatever they could scrounge up"?

It behooves us to treat Grant's memoirs with the same critical eye as we treat all other memoirs. Meanings change and are nuanced based upon the time and experiences of the speaker, the reader, and the vernacular, the slang of the moment. If I were to describe my own experiences of 10 or even 20 years ago, I would not use the same style of speaking today as I did then. Someone of the 1860's saying "he's a very cool soldier" is not meaning the same as someone today reciting the same line. In the 1860's, the speaker would have meant "icy" or 'calculating", whereas today it would mean "hip" or "kewl" or whatever the current slang would dictate.

What is known, for certain, is that Grant owned what we would today refer to as a "commerical blouse" or a "private purchase sack coat", etc. I will still argue that that coat is what he was wearing on 9 April. It is all well and good for us to romantically view him as the humble man in an enlisted coat accepting the surrender of the ANV from an impeccably-clad Lee.

That, however, is as much a myth as the "ragged rugged barefoot rebel". It is worked and repeated and brought out often in order to show how the "solid, blue-collar" machinists from the North destroyed the southern gentry, the "new aristocracy". It is a sham, a myth, but still has many adherants. :D

Respects,

This would be a great argument to have over a beer. Maybe we should suspend it until we're in the field with Rodman again. :-)

Speaking of squirrel guns, while browsing through Rudolf Aschmann's memoirs this weekend (OK, he had a quote about coats, too, but I'll save it) I found a mention of his carrying a shotgun into the field (!). Farby sharpshooter...

[TimKindred]

Heh,

Oh heavens.... now you're going to bring Bill T'other into this.... sigh... :rolleyes: Heh. I'll see him next month. :D

Yes... it's an excellent topic for an evening by the fireplace with a glass of port and a good cigar. To be honest, it's one of the best ways to examine an issue, talking over the salient points and approaching the subject from a variety of perspectives and references.

To be honest, I have never denied that Grant, or any other officer MAY have worn an enlisted man's blouse at one time or another. What I have advocated constantly is that such things are vastly, in my opinion, over-done, over-represented, and often used as a cheap way for someone to "get by" portraying an officer.

Respects,

[TheQM]

Heh,

Oh heavens.... now you're going to bring Bill T'other into this.... sigh... :rolleyes: Heh. I'll see him next month. :D

Respects,

Guys,

One of the things I love and also hate about this Hobby is we know very little, for a fact, about almost anything. The only things I'm really sure of is that Civil War soldiers didn't wear nylon uniforms and very little of their equipment was made of plastic. I'm also sure that no Civil War soldier cared if his uniform came from the Schuylkill Arsenal, J.T. Martin or if it was a Type 2 or 3 Richmond Depot pattern.

I spent almost 25 years in the modern military which colors my perceptions of what went on during the Civil War. I'm sure other people's backgrounds also color their preceptions. We talk about drill until we are blue in the face. We know what the books say, but none of us knows for sure what they really did on the battlefield. My guess is that every situation and every unit was different, but the KISS rule got the priority.

There was a thread about slinging rifles over on the A-C Forum. It was pointed out that the few manuals addressing this subject said the barrels had to be up when the weapon was slung. Very true, but did you ever try to sling an Enfield with the muzzle up? Just doesn't work very well. So what did the soldiers do? Who knows, I sure don't.

[TimKindred]

Bill,

You speak very true. I have similar experiences from my time in uniform. For example, I wore the issue utility uniform (Navy) purchasing the items directly from the clothing store on base. However, for my dress uniform, I had mine tailor-made by a commercial vendor. I also had the daily uniform (whites or blues) purchased from a commercial vendor because, frankly, the issue ones sucked big time. The double-knit blouses and trousers were far superior to what Uncle Sam offered, both in comfort, appearance and wearability.

Now, having said all that, if you were to line up ship's company, you'd be hard pressed to tell who was wearing government produced versus commercial-vendor made without getting up close.

Respects,

[Pvt Schnapps]

Tim, I came across the following quote, which while perhaps not definitive, does tend to reinforce what you said earlier. It dates from the summer of '64 and, in describing the blouses, makes a couple of interesting statements. For example, when Porter says the blouse is "substantially" that of a private, he is simultaneously saying that it isn't, really, but might be mistaken for one. And in describing Grant's habits of dress, he raises the distinct possibility that the sack described was the very one worn the following spring.

If I ever find a special or general order allowing officers to buy clothing from the QM I'll post it, but right now that seems to have been a hallucination of mine.

Here's the quote:

Campaigning with Grant, by Horace Porter: pp. 823-839

DONNING SUMMER UNIFORM.

"THE weather had become so warm that the general and most of the staff had ordered thin, dark-blue flannel blouses to be sent to them to take the place of the heavy uniform coats which they had been wearing. The summer clothing had arrived, and was now tried on. The general’s blouse, like the others, was of plain material, single-breasted, and had four regulation brass buttons in front. It was substantially the coat of a private soldier, with nothing to indicate the rank of an officer except the three gold stars of a lieutenant-general on the shoulder-straps. He wore at this time a turn-down white linen collar and a small, black butterfly cravat, which was hooked on to his front collar-button. The general, when he put on the blouse, did not take the pains to see whether it fitted him or to notice how it looked, but thought only of the comfort it afforded, and said, “Well, this is a relief,” and then added: “I have never taken as much satisfaction as some people in making frequent changes in my outer clothing. I like to put on a suit of clothes when I get up in the morning, and wear it until I go to bed, unless I have to make a change in my dress to meet company. I have been in the habit of getting one coat at a time, putting it on and wearing it every day as long as it looked respectable, instead of using a best and a second best. I know that is not the right way to manage, but a comfortable coat seems like an old friend and I don’t like to change it. The general had also received a pair of light, neatly fitting calfskin boots, to which he seemed to take a fancy; thereafter he wore them most of the time in place of his heavy top-boots, putting on the latter only when he rode out in wet weather."

[TimKindred]

Mike,

That's the comments I was referring to. I don't have a copy of his book anymore, as some helped themselves to several boxes of them from my storage shed a few years ago.

Brian Pohanka showed me a copy of the reciept for those blouses back around 1989 or so. He had been researching some material in the archives on Grant's staff and came across it. There's a wealth of stuff like that in those boxes in Washington. To be honest, there's a lot of similar material in many archived collections across the country that folks have yet to dig into.

For example, up at Bowdoin College, there is not only the Chamberlain collection in the library, but also te O.O. Howard collection, plus collections of Hyde and Fessenden as well, all rich with letters and documents and receipts. In the Chamberlain collection are several recipts from Boston & New York firms through which he was purchasing items for his officer's mess. Coffee, port, sugar, dried vegetables, cooking equipment, etc are all listed on the various recipts. Most of them, interestingly enough, are printed on a pale blue paper, rather than white.

Thanks for posting this quote.

Respects,