English Imported Gear

[3rdARboy]

I am getting a Isaac & Campbell Knapsack after years of using the bedroll only. I know it is appropriate for my unit(3rd Arkansas) but I was wondering how common they were among the rest of the units of the Confederate armies.

Lane Reeder
Co. E, 3rd Arkansas
Texas Brigade

[Iron Scout]

Colleagues,

Several months back there was an interesting discussion on Blockade Running and the like. Bret Sumner posted a most excellent bibliography relating to the topic and discussed the sheer volume of items being imported from England. I had the opportunity yesterday to spend a few hours with one of the resources and thought I'd share just a few tidbits of interesting (and oddball) information. If anyone is interested, I'd highly recommend this particular work:

Confederate Blockade Running Through Bermuda 1861-1865; ed. Frank Vandiver (University of Texas Press, 1947)


The publication centers on the letterbooks of two gentlemen, John Tory Bourne and Major Smith Stansbury. Bourne served as the acting Confederate Commercial Agent in St. George's while Stansbury was the commander of the Confederate Ordnance Depot at the same location. For anyone interested in specific cargo manifests, the Confederate finance system or the blockade in general, this work is a must read.

19 February 1864
Extract of letter to Girard & Gautherin, Paris, discussing the receipt of 21 bales of 'Grey Cloth':

"I have requested the agent for the Navy Department to take it over, making me payment as you requested, which he declined to do, not having any instructions from his department to receive 'Grey Cloth'; your contract which he holds specifies 'Grey Flannel' and 'ready made clothing' for the Navy Department..."
John T. Bourne

**This is the first reference I've ever seen for a French firm holding a contract for ready made clothing.

17 August 1863
To Mr. J. T. Bourne
"Sir,
Please load the steamer Ella and Annie at Mrs. Todd's Wharf with 500 cases Austrian Rifles, 480 boxes Austrian Ammunition, 20 Carboy's Nitric Acid, 10 Carboy's Sulphuric Acid, 10 Carboy's Muriatic Acid, 1 case Gum Shellac, 5 casks Surgical Instruments, 50 cases Saddlery, Emery, 10 kegs horseshoes."
Smith Stansbury, Major

**Another note a little later gives the breakdown for some of the items as:
500 cases rifles=12,000 arms
484 cases ammunition=484,000 rounds

5 September 1863
To Colonel J. Gorgas
"Colonel,
We have on hand-lead, about 150 tons, powder, about 1000 barrels, cases of leather, about 150 cases, Ingot and Sheet Tin, quite a quantity. I have again written to Major Huse to send arms, ammunition, cannon powder, Saltpetre, lead & percussion caps."
Smith Stansbury, Major

14 September 1863
To Captain Richard H. Gayle, Steamer "Cornubia"
"Captain,
Please receive on board: 150 coils rope, 27 bails hammocks, 4 casks, 6 bales cotton shirts, 8 bales white flannel shirts, 4 bales blue cloth overcoats, 5 bales duck trousers, 33 bales duck frocks, 2 boxes combs, 2 cases tin pots."
J.T. Bourne
per Geo. P. Gibson

**This one blew me away with the hammocks, duck trousers and especially the frocks. Of course stuff like this gets one wondering if those were stable frocks or something of the sort.

Anyway, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I've requested copies of the book's cargo manifests which should provide for some interesting reading. Just another example of how successful the CS government was in procurring massive amounts of goods overseas.

Neill Rose
Palmetto Living History Association

[DougCooper]

CS Navy issue perhaps?
Colleagues,

14 September 1863
To Captain Richard H. Gayle, Steamer "Cornubia"
"Captain,
Please receive on board: 150 coils rope, 27 bails hammocks, 4 casks, 6 bales cotton shirts, 8 bales white flannel shirts, 4 bales blue cloth overcoats, 5 bales duck trousers, 33 bales duck frocks, 2 boxes combs, 2 cases tin pots."
J.T. Bourne
per Geo. P. Gibson

**This one blew me away with the hammocks, duck trousers and especially the frocks. Of course stuff like this gets one wondering if those were stable frocks or something of the sort.

Anyway, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I've requested copies of the book's cargo manifests which should provide for some interesting reading. Just another example of how successful the CS government was in procurring massive amounts of goods overseas.

Neill Rose
Palmetto Living History Association

[BHoover]

There is a small Confederate museum in Bermuda which is well worth a visit if you are ever there. One of the things they have are sketches done by one of the Federal agents stationed there. He drew detailed sketches of every blockade runner that came through Bermuda (several hundred if my memory serves), along with any other information that he could discover about the ships. Apparently this was to be used after the war for legal prosecutions &tc. If anyone is interested it might be worth their while to write to this museum and see what they have.

[Johan Steele]

I'm rather certain the museum has a website, I remember doing some research on the blockade and running across it. IIRC a large chunk of the sketches were cataloged on a web site. My old computer went the way of the old AC archive so I don't have the link. I remember seeing quite a list of blockade runners w/ details on "suspected cargo & destination." Certainly be worth the search.


There is a small Confederate museum in Bermuda which is well worth a visit if you are ever there. One of the things they have are sketches done by one of the Federal agents stationed there. He drew detailed sketches of every blockade runner that came through Bermuda (several hundred if my memory serves), along with any other information that he could discover about the ships. Apparently this was to be used after the war for legal prosecutions &tc. If anyone is interested it might be worth their while to write to this museum and see what they have.

[Masked Battery]

Those have to be typo's. Why would ducks wear trousers and frocks? :D

[Gallinipper]

Why would ducks wear trousers and frocks? :D

Neal, Hard Quackers come again no more?

Rich Croxton

[SCTiger]

I started the old Blockade Runner thread "Starvation in a land of plenty" about the Civilian Runners, versus the military blockade runners. Even until the closing days of the war, the CSA civlian runners were importing champagne and fancy women's hats over basic military supplies and food. I believe that Garrison Beall (Vurginyuh) made a comment that a CSA law required every ship to dedicate a portion of their cargo to "military item." I don't have the information handy

Also Stephen Wise wrote a book on this subject:

http://www.sc.edu/uscpress/1993older/9799.html ,

I have it on my "next to read list." Bottom line, just because the item was on a civlian manifest, didn't mean that it made it to the troops. We need a good study of the government/military owned/chartered ships. I would also like to see how much of the captured cargo wound up in the hands of the Union Quartemaster.

[Ken Knopp]

Gentlemen,
In the course of research on this subject in preparation for my two books on Confederate saddlery I found several very informative sources for what, when, how and where imports in the the South were made. The book you site is excellent as is a couple of others:

THE SUPPLIES FOR THE CONFEDERATE ARMY, HOW THEY WERE OBTAINED IN EUROPE AND HOW PAID FOR, By Caleb Huse (The C.S. Ordnance Dept's primary purchasing agent)

LIFELINE OF THE CONFEDERACY, BLOCKADE RUNNING DURING THE CIVIL WAR, By Stephen Wise

GUNS FOR COTTON, ENGLAND ARMS THE CONFEDERACY, By Thomas Boaz

The best un-published source for most books is the "Account Book of Capt. John M. Payne, Comprising Imported Ordnance Stores at Wilmington 1863-1865". Eleanor S. Brockenbrough Library, Museum of the Confederacy, Richmond, Va. This is a very important and detailed record of goods imported at the Ordnance Bureau’s main port of entry. You might be surprised to see what the South did import!

I provide alot of detailed information relative to imports of British saddlery in the South in both of my two books including an overview, some excerpts of blockade running cargos, Blockade Runners, dates, entreports, etc.

Interesting, a friend of mine (I am not at liberty to say whom though a well known author) is in collaboration (with another well known author) for a very comprehensive book on Confederate Foriegn import operations. They have been through all of the major archival sources including those mentioned above, the Bermuda records and the records of the various Prize Courts where "captured" cargoes were auctioned. He tells me they are most enlightening.
One interesting fact is that when cargoes were auctioned the U.S. Navy allowed the captain of the U.S vessal a significant portion of the money as an incentive. Another interesting fact was that the Navy would not allow the U.S. Army any portion of the captured arms or equipment no matter how desperately they were needed in the field. Instead, the army was required to purchase them at auction. In essence, they had to be the highest bidder if they wanted them!
For more information you might want to look over an article I published on the subject at my web site (free).

Thank you!

Ken R. Knopp
www.confederatesaddles.com

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Chris E. Fonvielle, Jr.'s book The Last Rays of Hope: The Wilmington Campaign published 1997 by Saves Publishing Company has a chapter dedicated in the book called "The Port" (aka Chapter 1). It goes into some blockade running and I just wanted to add a few quotes to this general discussion:

Pg 9: " 'The public freight compared with the private freight was small,' a Confederate officer pointed out."

Pg 13: "Between November 1, 1863, and October 25, 1864, blockade runners brought into the Confederacy 6,200,000 pounds of meat, 1,490,000 pounds of lead, 1,850,000 pounds of saltpeter (a key ingredient in gunpowder), 420,000 pairs of boots and shoes, 292,000 blankets, 408,000 pounds of coffee, 136,832 muskets, rifle-muskets, and carbines, and a large number of other articles. [snip] In a thirty-seven day stretch between October 31 and the first week of December 1864, nineteen steamers ran the blockade into Wilmington. They carried 328 cases of rifle-muskets, tons of ammunition, boots and shoes, blankets, buttons, buckles, cloth, tools, beef, pork, beans, coffee, saltpeter, zinc, iron, tin and other provisions for the government."

Pg 18: "No doubt the 'sham' nature of the blockade prompted North Carolina to invest heavily in the blockade running at Wilmington. According to Governor Vance the state imported 60,000 pairs of cotton handcards, leather for 250,000 shoes, 50,000 blankets, gray woolen cloth for 125,000 uniforms [snip], 12,000 overcoats, 2,000 British Enfield rifle-muskets, 100,000 pounds of bacon, 500 sacks of coffee and $50,000 worth of medicine at gold prices. 'Not only was the supply of shoes, blankets and clothing more than sufficient for the supply of the North Carolina troops,' Vance claimed, 'but large quantities were turned over to the Confederate government for the troops of other states.' According to one estimate blockade running investments at Wilmington in 1864 alone amounted to $66,000,000 in gold and $65,000,000 in cotton exports."

Pg 315: "The Confederate-owned blockade runner Stag, commanded by Lt. Richard H. Gayle of the C.S. Navy, dropped anchor at Smithville [Ed: North Carolina, not Virginia~EKD] about 2:00 a.m. on January 20,[1865] having just made the dangerous three-day journey from Bermuda. Union sailors immediately boarded the ship, which was laden with firearms, blankets an shoes destined for Lee's beleagured army. Half an hour later the British steamer Charlotte, also out of Bermuda, stopped at Smithfield. An elegant champagne dinner in celebration of the successful run was infull swing when Lieutenant Commander Cushing came aboard to inform the astonished captain, Thomas E. Cocker, that the Charlotte had just become the property of the U.S. Navy. [Ed. Comment: Um didn't we fight the War of 1812 over something similiar? LOL! Ah yes, we adore hypocracy!~EKD] Among the Charlotte's passengers were several distinguished British army officers and adventurers who had run the blockade 'on a lark.' They expressed their 'beastly luck' at being captured, but saw no reason for it to spoil their fine meal. Cushing agreed, and joined them as a self-invited guest. Unlike the Stag, the Charlotte's cargo consisted primarily of 'articles for ladies' use...French bonnets, cloaks, shoes, and other feminine bric-a-brac,' prompting Admiral Porter to comment 'that ladies will indulge in their little vanities in spite of war and desolation.'

Just a few other quotes for the discussion...

[RockCityGuard]

The Museum is the Bermuda National Trust Museum.

"For 150 years, the house that Governor Samuel Day built in 1700 served as the Globe Hotel, and, until 1995, it housed the Confederate Museum. Opened in July 1996, the Trust Museum exhibits “Rogues and Runners: Bermuda and the American Civil War.” This exhibit tells the story of St. George’s adventures as a port for Confederate blockade runners. Located on Duke of York Street, St. George’s"

Some information I was able to get from a Bermuda Site:
http://www.bermuda-online.org/seetown.htm


It has displays, maps, memorabilia and period furnishings on Bermuda's role, biased towards the Confederates. It angered Union forces. Artifacts and more tell of blockade running and linking Bermuda with the Confederates, thanks to the skills of Britons and Canadians.

When the American Civil War began in 1860, it was not long before Bermuda, with its convenient access to open ocean and its St. George's in particular, became the second-largest, after Nassau, Bahamas, transshipment base for large British-built but not British-approved (because Britain was officially neutral) ships crossing the Atlantic and smaller but faster, also mostly British-built but Confederate-owned fleet of blockade runners. In contemptuous defiance of British neutrality laws or regulations, large ships from the United Kingdom unloaded in St. George's huge cargoes of arms and ammunition, cannon, gunpowder, lead and other tools or weapons, plus huge amounts of smokeless anthracite coal from Wales, into town warehouses, where they were stored until loaded aboard fast steamers bound for Confederate ports.

Confederate purchasing agents and British speculators - English, Scots, Welsh and Irish - rented every available wharf, storehouse and warehouse, often at exorbitant rates, while Bermudians made fortunes from renting or leasing their wharves or warehouses. It turned usually sedate St. George's into an overcrowded, polluted, often lawless and dangerous town, especially with sailors looking for liquor and women.

There were dangers, too.

In October 1864, Bat, length 230', beam 26', draft 7'6", speed 16 knots, her sisters Owl, Stag, and Deer were side-wheelers with long, low, molded steel hulls, schooner-rigged fore and aft, with two funnels. They had twin, 180-nominal hp., vertical, double-oscillating, Watt engines and capacity for 800 to 850 bales of cotton, plus enough anthracite to return from Nassau, Havana or Bermuda. Bat reached Halifax on her maiden voyage and ran down to the Cape Fear River, attempting entrance the night of October 8 1864 with a cargo of shoe machinery and 200 tons of coal; she was turned back by blockaders. On October 10, Captain A. Hora, a blockade runner, tried again and was hit by USS Montgomery. The 30-pounder amputated the leg of seaman Match Madick, an Austrian, who had been captain of the forecastle in the Alabama during her battle with USS Kearsarge. Captain Hora surrendered and called Montgomery's surgeon but Madick died.

Flamingo, length 270', beam 24', draft 7', crew 45, speed 16 knots. She suffered a serious setback in Bermuda, with with her sister, Ptarmigan, while their crews battled yellow fever. She was wrecked off Battery Rutledge on the north side of Charleston harbor.

Greyhound was fast, with red streak along her light lead colored hull. Built in Liverpool in 1863 she left for the Confederacy on January 5, 1864 on her maiden voyage, and ran between there and Bermuda mostly. Commanded by Lt. George Henry Bier, CSN, on 9 May 1864 she ran out of Wilmington NC, with 820 bales of cotton, 35 tons of tobacco and 25 casks of turpentine. Captured next day by USS Connecticut, she became celebrated as the ship that carried a mysterious "Mrs. Lewis", soon recognized as "the famous rebel lady, Miss Belle Boyd.” The prize master, Acting Ensign Samuel Harding, Jr., USN, who took Greyhound to Boston was persuaded by his charming prisoner to let Captain Bier escape from Boston to Canada; for this Harding was dismissed from the US Navy in disgrace, so married Belle Boyd in England.

In January 1865, when Wilmington, North Carolina was captured by Union forces, the fleet of blockade runners based in Nassau and St. George's, Bermuda, vanished - and so did the prosperity that the US Civil War had brought Bermuda by being so hugely on the side of the Confederates. See the story of Bermuda and the American Civil War and a video with great images of the forces which shaped Bermuda, titled Bermuda: Center of the Atlantic.

Lynx was a long, very fast Clyde-built (in Scotland) paddle-steamer with two stacks and two masts, all painted white. She met her end bound for Bermuda, running out of Wilmington NC, under Captain Reid, with 600 bales of cotton, passengers and special cargo, including $50,000 in gold. She was hit eight times, six below the waterline, by the 100-pounder and 30-pounder rifles of much slower USS Howquah, assisted by Niphon and Governor Buckingham. Sinking, with one of her wheels damaged, Lynx was beached about six miles below Fort Fisher. The Confederates all escaped, along with the gold, although Federal sharpshooters got near enough to wound one crew member. The ship's remains were set afire.

Owl, length 230', beam 26', draft 7'6", speed 14-16 knots. She was at Bermuda with cotton. Captain John N. Maffitt, once the Florida captain, collected the latter's survivors in Bermuda. (She was a Confederate cruiser sunk by the Union Navy).

Robert E. Lee, length 283', beam 20', draft 10', speed 13.5 knots. A schooner-rigged, iron-hulled, oscillating-engined paddle-steamer with two stacks originally the Giraffe, built on the Clyde during the autumn of 1862 as a fast Glasgow-Belfast packet. Alexander Collie & Co., Manchester, acquired her for their blockade-running fleet but were persuaded by renowned blockade-runner Lt. John Wilkinson, CSN, to sell her to the Navy Department. Her first voyage, for the Confederate Navy, was into Old Inlet, Wilmington NC, in January 1863 with valuable munitions and 26 Scot lithographers, eagerly awaited by the Government bureau of engraving and printing. She established a legendary reputation by outracing the blockader USS Iroquois. Lt. Richard H. Gayle, CSN, assumed command in May, relieving Lt. John Wilkinson. Robert E. Lee's luck ran out on November 9, 1863, after 21 voyages in 10 months carrying out over 7,000 bales of cotton, returning with munitions invaluable to the Confederacy. She left Bermuda five hours after her consort, Cornubia, only to be run down a few hours later by the USS James Adger.

Stag. Length 230', beam 26', draft 7'6", speed 16 knots. She was a fast, modern, steel paddle-steamer built for the Confederate Navy at Liverpool as Jones, Quiggin & Co.'s Hull No. 169 in 1864 to the order of Cdr. James D. Bulloch, CSN. She sailed from Liverpool on her maiden voyage in August, getting away from Nassau about 1 September. For the rest of the year, she was busily running out of Charleston and Wilmington to Nassau or Bermuda. She fell into Union hands when she attempted to run into Wilmington in January 1865; Fort Fisher having just fallen, she was trapped by the Union Navy along with the Charlotte.

If you want to go by there or contact them here is the information:

Location: 32 Duke of York Street, St. George's
Phone: (441) 297 1423
Bus Routes: 1, 3, 10, 11
Ferry to St. George’s: Apr-Nov only, yellow route
Hours of Operation: Mon-Sat, 10am-4pm
Admission: Adults $4, Children (6-18 years) $2
Combination Ticket to all three Trust museums $5

[1stMaine]

Comrades,

I quote the following from the initial post:
===========================
14 September 1863
To Captain Richard H. Gayle, Steamer "Cornubia"
"Captain,
Please receive on board: 150 coils rope, 27 bails hammocks, 4 casks, 6 bales cotton shirts, 8 bales white flannel shirts, 4 bales blue cloth overcoats, 5 bales duck trousers, 33 bales duck frocks, 2 boxes combs, 2 cases tin pots."
J.T. Bourne
per Geo. P. Gibson

**This one blew me away with the hammocks, duck trousers and especially the frocks. Of course stuff like this gets one wondering if those were stable frocks or something of the sort.
=============================

I would that the majority, if not all of the above manifest was destined for the CS Navy. The Navy upper garment during this period is universally referred to as a "frock" and both the US and CS Navvy produced a summer garment in duck, with blue collar and cuffs. Now, one interesting point is that these are ready-made garments, which is a bit unusual, in that traditionally a sailor was required to produce/sew his own garments. A recruit was processed through a receiving ship (normally an old hulk demasted and roofed over, and anchored in a fixed spot as a floating classroom). Shortly after arrival he was issued cloth and thread and told to make up his clothing. This provided a good source of revenue for those handy with a needle. Still, the Federal Navy started issuing ready-made clothing due to the sheer volume of recruits being brought in after the war began.
Anyway, those 4 bales of "blue cloth overcoats" could very well be pea coats for sailors. Despite the CS Navy's ordinance about grey clothing for sailors, there was much resistance, blue being the universal color for Naval clothing, and images of CS sailors show a marked use of blue clothing, especially British Navy pattern frocks, identifiable by a distinctive white border on the frock collar.
respects,

[VMI88]

Colleagues,

14 September 1863
To Captain Richard H. Gayle, Steamer "Cornubia"
"Captain,
Please receive on board: 150 coils rope, 27 bails hammocks, 4 casks, 6 bales cotton shirts, 8 bales white flannel shirts, 4 bales blue cloth overcoats, 5 bales duck trousers, 33 bales duck frocks, 2 boxes combs, 2 cases tin pots."
J.T. Bourne
per Geo. P. Gibson

**This one blew me away with the hammocks, duck trousers and especially the frocks. Of course stuff like this gets one wondering if those were stable frocks or something of the sort.



I believe the duck frocks and trousers would be CS Navy uniforms, what we today call the "crackerjack" uniform.

[Busterbuttonboy]

Howdy All
I recently spoke with a very knowledgable comrade concerning english accoutrements. It was mentioned that they may have been issued as complete kits. Ive done alot of searching, reading, and asking concerning this but have come up with little yet. So, if your impression calls for the use of english items how complete or incomplete should the accoutrments be? IE- Cartridge box, Cap pouch, Knapsack, cateen, belt? I have read accounts of obvisouly droping knapsacks in general, but also english boxes as they were inconveinent to access as well as the sling mounted cap pouches. Comments? Documents? Suggestions?
Most Respectfully
Drew Gruber
14thNJVI

[1stMaine]

Comrade,

Are you speaking of federal or CS use of English accouterments? Massachusetts imported 10,000 sets of English pattern accouterments, but only 2 regiments received complete sets. It is worth noting that no knapsacks were imported by that state, and that those cartridge boxes imported were of the pattern where the cap box was sewn directly to the cartridge box body, towards the wearer's front, and under the flap. Massachusetts paid a contractor to remove the cap boxes and alter them to be worn in the normal fashion, upon the waistbelt. The other sets of accouterments were issued in partial sets, some with American pattern bayonet scabbards where Springfields were issued, and others with English pattern scabbards where Enfields were issued. Some had snake buckle belts with American boxes, etc. Maine also purchased 1,000 sets, but to whom they were issued is as yet unknown.
As to CS usage, it should be pointed oput that although the sling-worn cap box was known, it's use had in many cases been discontinued by the British army, and a belt-worn cap box being introduced. many of these newer cap boxes were imported to the south, along with snake buckle belts, and cartridge boxes of various styles. The boxes also had various arrangements of tins, depending upon whom the box was intended to be issued. Sergeant's pattern boxes had a series of evenly spaced compartments designed to hold English-pattern cartridge bundles, whereas the rank and file and compartments designed to hold loose rounds and packets.
Additionally, there are id'd examples of "expense pouches" being issued in place of cap boxes for both US and CS. The expense pouch was designed to hold 10 rounds of ammunition, loose, where the cap box was normally worn, and these rounds would be used first, then replaced by a packet of 10 as required. This pouch was isued with the idea that the cap box would be worn on the sling, but as I said, these were being phased out, and so these expense pouches were in many cases surplus, and thus available for sale to other markets.
Anyway, both types of accouterments could be issued in brown or black, depending upon which British corp they were designed for. It's possible that some white buff items were sold and issued over here, but with the move towards blackened accouterments in America, most of these likely were blackened to fit in. The use of white buff slings with English pattern accouterments, should, in my opinion, be only used where documented eveidence is available, and specific to the unit being recreated. This, of course, could and should exclude officer's pattern equipments, which, of course, would have been privately purchased in most cases.
Anyway, that's my long 2-cent's worth on the subject.
respects,

[Busterbuttonboy]

Tim
Thanks for your reply. I shoulda denoted that i was speaking of confederate usage. Though looking at it from both sides it is rather interesting. Concerning the cap pouches that rested on the sling; are their both that type and the normal english pattern belt cap pouch available? I would love to see a picture of a unit equiped entirely with british accoutrements. More or less as i wanted to intermix some english peices into my confederate impression but to what extent i was unsure. Any other comments or suggestions?
Most Respectfully
Drew Gruber

[62nd ALA Pvt]

Where is a good place to buy a good English snake belt from?




Pvt.Owen Pierce
62nd ALA Co.a

[Busterbuttonboy]

<STRIKE>Owen
Dells leather works offers english pattern "snake" belts. I beleive for around 40 dollars.
Most Respectfully
Drew Gruber
14thNJVI</STRIKE>

Drew,

If you cannot vouch for the quality of a maker, please DO NOT post your recommendations on this forum.

That leather 'maker' is not up to the standards that would be considered as authentic.

Scott McKay, moderator
Authentic Campaigner Forums

[Andrew Fraize]

I got mine from THE CAVALRY SHOP and am well pleased with it. Good heavy leather, correct makers marks and nice looking buckle. Have had it 4 years and it has held up very well. Paid $37 for it then.

The Cavalry Shop
9700 Royerton Dr.
Richmond, VA 23228
PH: (804) 266-0898

<STRIKE>I see DIXIE LEATHER WORKS also has one but can't comment on the quality good or bad on their goods.</STRIKE>

Andrew,

As I had chimed in on Drew's post, if you cannot vouch for the quality of a maker, please DO NOT post your recommendations on this forum, particularly when you profess to not know their quality.

Both leather 'makers' are not up to the standards that would be considered as authentic.

Scott McKay, moderator
Authentic Campaigner Forums

Hope this helps.
S!

[RyanBWeddle]

I can't comment on the previous two suggestions because I don't know of the vendors.

Here's a few solid suggestions:

Hank Kluin
http://www.fburgess.com/

Lukas Berg
sold through various vendors at various times:
CJ Daley www.cjdaley.com
Adam Cecil www.thequartermasterstores.com

There are several styles of these belts which were used during the war, research what you need and proceed.

[DougCooper]

I own one bought through Chris Daley, made by Lukas Berg. There is a substantial increase in leather quality, stitching and dye accuracy with the one I own over examples from folks like Dixie and such. If value is your object (price+quality+accuracy), I would recommend Lukas Berg, through either vendor as Ryan states above. Hank Kluin also does it right.

[62nd ALA Pvt]

How about Dells Leather works are they any good ?

No, they are not up to snuff.

Scott McKay, moderator
Authentic Campaigner Forums

Pvt.Owen Pierce

[hireddutchcutthroat]

How about Dells Leather works are they any good ?

Pvt.Owen Pierce

I would also suggest Hank Kluin. You cannot go wrong.

[62nd ALA Pvt]

I guess it is Hank Kluin then.


Thanks,
Owen Pierce

[GaReb]

I just bought two original British army snake-buckle belts from a dealer on Ebay that found them in Natchez, Missouri. I was wondering if there was anything that would hint to Confederate usage. One of the belts is stamped J. Fondson-Bruxells on the tongue. Anybody know if that's an importers mark? I'd appreciate any help I can get on this.

Pvt. Chris Anderson
5th Geo. Infantry

[1stMaine]

Comrade,

Did you mean, perchance, Natchez Mississippi? If so, then he could have "found" them in the fields to the south where the battle scenes from "North and South Book II" were filmed. Quite a lot of stuff was "lost" and "used up" there, especially with some 2,000 Confederates camping out and running around the area.
Without an iron-clad provenance, I would never assume anything from ebay is what it is claimed to be.
respects,

[markj]

I just bought two original British army snake-buckle belts from a dealer on Ebay that found them in Natchez, Missouri. I was wondering if there was anything that would hint to Confederate usage. One of the belts is stamped J. Fondson-Bruxells on the tongue. Anybody know if that's an importers mark? I'd appreciate any help I can get on this.

Pvt. Chris Anderson
5th Geo. Infantry

"Bruxells" is almost certainly BRUSSELS (Belgium). Enfield rifle-muskets were produced under license by Belgian manufacturers and the State of Indiana attempted to contract for a large lot of Belgian-produced Enfields in early May 1861 as stated in the "Diary of Calvin Fletcher" (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1980, p. 108-109):

Thursday, May 2nd, 1861:

[While on our purchasing mission to Montreal, Quebec, British Canada] We went to 2 importing houses & with Messrs. Elliott & Co., made an agreement to buy 1,000 Minie or Endfield [sic] Rifles to be imported from Belgium from the manufact[ur]ers Aunet & Co. for which we have to pay the export & give some 20 [dollars] a piece. German gentleman one of the firm who had been in Belgium some years [sic].

If I find anything else, I'll post it.

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[Vuhginyuh]

Chris,
Can you add an image off your artfacts? If so I will add images of a piece that was excavated from a remote 18th century site (near Fort Anderson, Brunswick Co, NC) here four weeks ago.

[huntdaw]

I just bought two original British army snake-buckle belts from a dealer on Ebay that found them in Natchez, Missouri. I was wondering if there was anything that would hint to Confederate usage. One of the belts is stamped J. Fondson-Bruxells on the tongue. Anybody know if that's an importers mark? I'd appreciate any help I can get on this.

Pvt. Chris Anderson
5th Geo. Infantry


The abbreviation MS is for Mississippi. MO is Missouri. My guess is your ebay page said MS cause there ain't no Natchez in Missouri.

[Yellowhammer]

Also, keep in mind that the British Army used belts with "snake buckles" for nearly 100 years. (And no, they weren't all the same.)

Lately, a lot of late Victorian belts have been popping up. Some are Brit, some are colonial, and some are Canadian but none of them are very much like what was imported during the ACW.

[WBailey]

John is right. A lot of ex Canadian Military equipment came south and has been put into the Civil War relic markets all of course post war. Many Canadian regimental marked pieces show up at shows.

Wes Bailey

[GaReb]

Yeah I meant Mississippi. Late when I posted and I was just trying to get it all down. Also he bought them at an estate sale, if that would help clear anything up. I have pictures how do I go about posting them?

Pvt. Chris Anderson
5th Geo. Infantry

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

Not that it was theeintent of the reply, but one will find far more "Enfields" than "snake buckles..."

Of course, I am not in a position to know or question this sale...
But I would add the EBAY Caveat that probably second only to the use of the word "RARE," "purchased from an estate sale" is common verbage (followed by "Purchased from an estate sale- I know nothing about it." and
which maybe third to "I was told").

I not disparaging or knocking what I don't know here, but EBAY is... well, EBAY!

I hope and trust this purchase is sound (but doubt it).

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[GaReb]

I seriously doubt the historical value of the piece as well but I got two belts for a great price so I grabbed them. If they're junk I'll dump them off on Ebay as fast as I got them and get more out of them than I payed. If I happened to get lucky and I can verify Confederate provenance then it'll work out extremely well. How do I go about uploading the pictures? I'm sure those will help for identification.

Pvt. Chris Anderson
5th Geo. Infantry

[Iron Scout]

Chris,

I'd love to see pics of the belts. I viewed a very large collection of I&C goods today and learned quite a bit to boot. Likewise, I've been on a snake belt research binge here lately. There are some construction details that pertain to CW era snake belts that are very unique. You can post the photos off your desktop here if you'd like or email them to me directly. From my understanding though, the only documented belts have been those with either the I&C stamp or unmarked (but ID'd). As others have stated, there are several nationalities that used these belts in various configurations for numerous years.

Regards,

Neill Rose
PLHA
Love & Wienges
ironscout@charter.net

[Toney]

Neill,

May be you can answer this question. I have heard a rumor about some faked Isaac and Campbell marked items being sold in the collector markets. Is there any truth to this rumor? One person who was said to have some for sale that was questionable was Juno, from the Pickett lawsuit fame.

Thanks for your time

Joe Toney

[Iron Scout]

Joe,

I really can't comment as I haven't heard that before. There are actually very few marked I&C products on the collector's market to begin with so I'm sure they're scrutinized quite closely.

Neill Rose
PLHA
L&W

[Jimmayo]

About 20 years ago there was someone faking the I&C stamp on snake buckle belts. Friend of mine bought one. The marking did not correspond to the authentic markings but had the same information. If you had never seen the real thing you wouldn't know the difference. There are probably some of these fakes still out there.

[Iron Scout]

About 20 years ago there was someone faking the I&C stamp on snake buckle belts. Friend of mine bought one. The marking did not correspond to the authentic markings but had the same information. If you had never seen the real thing you wouldn't know the difference. There are probably some of these fakes still out there.

Scarey but not suprising. This leads me to another unrelated question though. Jim, have you or anyone you know ever dug/seen a brass trouser button marked "S. Isaacs Campbell & Co"? There's a reason I'm asking. Thanks for the insight.

Neill Rose
PLHA
L&W

[Toney]

Neill and Jim,

The one I heard about was a CS cap box that supposed to have been made from an old I&C marked cartridge box. The box was said to be a confederate piece but the stamp was applied later. The boxes that Juno was selling were marked I&C Enfield cartridge boxes but no tins. I did see the Enfield boxes myself, and thought it was odd to have no tins.

If this is true what is real?

Joe Toney

[1stMaine]

Comrade Jon,

A good portion, if not most, of the British pattern cartridge boxes imported into this country during the CW period had the cap box mounted on the front face, under the flap and towards the end nearest the wearer (the right, looking at the box). These were aften removed and belt loops added so as to be worn in the "American" style on the belt. The boxes will alle exhibit a row of holes where the stitches were removed.
The problem is that both sides did this. The Mass AG reports list several thousand boxes converted in this manner alone, so using this criterian as a means of ID'ing a box or cap pouch as either "CS" or "US" without a solid provenance is unreliable. Massachusetts alone purchased over 10,000 sets of English accouterments, and issued almost all of them. Other states also purchased them, so although the initial reaction upon finding a snake buckle or box or whatever might be to label it "CS", one must needs make certain that no Federal forces were in the area. The only items that I would bet were "CS" usage only would be the I&C knapsacks. To date, I have found no instance of Federal importations and/or use of the knapsack. Any other items, though, cannot, as I said, be considered absolutely "CS" without solid provenance.
respects,

[GaReb]

Well I just got an email from Iron Scout who deemed them to not be ACW. That kills the value for me but I suspected they weren't when i bought them. Would anyone like to buy them? I'm selling both of them for $250. Anyone interested shoot me an email.

Pvt. Chris Anderson
5th Geo. Infantry

[Bart]

hello all,
this is what I got from the Belgian Army museum:
Fonson started as button and medalmaker before 1830 (french period). this evolved to a big allround company for the military. from buttons and medals, to swords and sadlles, headgear and even complete uniforms. the end off the factory was in the 1970's...
I asked some details about the snake buckle. if i get the info, I will post it.

Bart Soons

[Vuhginyuh]

This British Hussar belt is on ebay now. I have no idea what the period is.

[sivart]

I have used the search button on this forum, and didn’t see anything, and I have searched books but nothing answers my question :angry_smi .

Is there any documented proof that a Federal unit might have carried an S. Isaac and Campbell knapsack. Maybe they were issued late war? I’m sure there area accounts of captured ones, but I’m looking for possible issued. Maybe they were only confed issued? If anybody has any info or can point me in the right direction. :confused:

[markj]

I don't personally know of any although, as you inferred, captured items might have been used. English-made accoutrements captured from Southern blockade runners were, as an 1863 item in the "United States Army & Navy Journal" noted, issued to Federal troops when available or necessary.

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[1stMaine]

Comrade,

In all of my personal research into Federal purchases of English-pattern accouterments, I have never seen a purchase or contract or order regarding English pattern knapsacks.
Additionally, I have never seen an image of a Federal soldier wearing an English pattern knapsack. In every image that I have seen, where federal soldiers are wearing either complete or partial sets of English-pattern accouterments, their knapsacks have been federal "double-bag" pattern.
This, of course, doesn't mean to imply that it NEVER occured, only that I have yet to encounter any mention of it. Was it POSSIBLE for a federal soldier to have worn an I&C knapsack? Of course, providing he was in an area where a CS soldier abandoned one, and he was able to find a reason to pick it up and use it. It's just not likely that it occured.
If you are casting about for a reason to wear an I&C with a federal impression, then you really ought to ask yourself if this is PEC? Do I want to wear this item because it is kewl and neat, or will it be a distraction that will cause me to stand out from the other soldiers of my unit because it is out of the norm? Is it appropriate for my impression? The latter should be the driving force behind your decision.
respects,

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Was it POSSIBLE for a federal soldier to have worn an I&C knapsack? Of course, providing he was in an area where a CS soldier abandoned one, and he was able to find a reason to pick it up and use it. It's just not likely that it occured.



"When we struck the crest I never halted, for my mind was set on some rebel knapsack... ...I found an opportuntity to make a good choice of knapsacks, as the ground was literaly covered with them as though the rebels had been perfectly panic stricken, and in their haste to get away had divested themselves of every pound of wieght they could possibly spare. After looking over a few I chose one which I thought would supply all my needs. Upon examiningmy prize I found a good government blanket, two shirts, two pairs of drawers, a pair of light summer pants, a night cap, a plug of tobacco, and a cornpone."

Levi Wagner
1st Ohio
After the Battle of Missionary Ridge

[1stMaine]

Comrade,

Thanks for the post. The problem, of course, is that it doesn't state the type of knapsack he picked up, and my own reading of it would lend me to believe it was either a CS manufactured piece, or a Federal knapsack captured by the rebels and then "recaptured' by a Federal soldier.
My rational is this: soldiers in this period tended to mention things in their letters that were out of the ordinary, not the commonplace items. If it was an English pattern knapsack, I suspect that the fellow would have included that tidbit in his comments about it, since it would have been identifiable as one due to the markings the maker would have applied to it. Otherwise, it seems he found a nice "common" knapsack that fit his needs.
respects,

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Comrade,

Thanks for the post. The problem, of course, is that it doesn't state the type of knapsack he picked up, and my own reading of it would lend me to believe it was either a CS manufactured piece, or a Federal knapsack captured by the rebels and then "recaptured' by a Federal soldier.
My rational is this: soldiers in this period tended to mention things in their letters that were out of the ordinary, not the commonplace items. If it was an English pattern knapsack, I suspect that the fellow would have included that tidbit in his comments about it, since it would have been identifiable as one due to the markings the maker would have applied to it. Otherwise, it seems he found a nice "common" knapsack that fit his needs.
respects,


I totally agree with you. I just love that quote :wink_smil

[10TnVI]

It's a great quote but I think your applying the wrong reason to his search for a knapsack. As I interpret it ,based on the context, he was not interested in the knapsack per say as the contents therein. The soldier had been besieged in Chattanooga for some time with a supply line that could barely keep him in half rations, much less supplied with clothing and such. That's how I would interpret the following part of the quote-

'After looking over a few I chose one which I thought would supply all my needs. Upon examining my prize I found a good government blanket, two shirts, two pairs of drawers, a pair of light summer pants, a night cap, a plug of tobacco, and a cornpone."

Contextually, this suggest he was in need of the contents, not necessarily the bag its self. Your mileage may vary

[hireddutchcutthroat]

It's a great quote but I think your applying the wrong reason to his search for a knapsack. As I interpret it ,based on the context, he was not interested in the knapsack per say as the contents therein. The soldier had been besieged in Chattanooga for some time with a supply line that could barely keep him in half rations, much less supplied with clothing and such. That's how I would interpret the following part of the quote-

'After looking over a few I chose one which I thought would supply all my needs. Upon examining my prize I found a good government blanket, two shirts, two pairs of drawers, a pair of light summer pants, a night cap, a plug of tobacco, and a cornpone."

Contextually, this suggest he was in need of the contents, not necessarily the bag its self. Your mileage may vary

Actually If you read the whole story Levi Wagner states in Wagner Reminiscences, he was very interested in specifically a knapsack as well as, its contents, as his was captured at Chickamauga.

[DBURT]

Apart from the sling mounted 1845 type,I am looking for information on any other types of cap pouches imported to the Confederacy from England.
There is sketchy information on a belt carried cap box, there is a pic of one in "Collecting the Confederacy" the book states its "based on the English pattern".
And Various sutlers sell copies of them as the "Enfield cap box".
Looking for a pattern date(Could it be 1854???) Could they have first been used in the Crimean war?. Also any specs,or photos of originals.
Dave Burt ACWS, England.

[1stMaine]

Comrade,

Well, Not made as such, but Massachusetts imported some 10,000 sets of English accoutrements in 1861. These cartridge boxes came with the cap box attached to the cartridge box face, and under the outer flap, towards the right side as you look at the boxes front.

Massachusetts contracted with a local tradesman to remove these cap boxes from the cartridge boxes, and to remake them (the cap boxes) so that they might be worn as in the Amrican system, upon the belt.

Additionally, images of some regiments (notably the 44th Mass) show the enlisted men using the "expense pouch" or "ball bag" as a cap pouch, and worn in the same manner and location as a cap pouch would be. It is grossly oversized, but it worked.

Those are two examples from memory.

Respects,

[DBURT]

Tim,
Thanks for your reply. In a related post a good while back you stated, Quote.
" Although the sling worn cap box was known, it had been largely discontinued in the British army,and a belt worn cap box being introduced.
Many of these newer cap boxes were imported to the South"
Its this cap box I'm interested in.
Do you, or anyone have any information on this box?
Regards,
Dave Burt.

[Charles Heath]

Tim,

To save you some typing, here's a recent discussion on the same topic:

http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-667.html

A quick glance at pages 170-171 of Paul Johnson's cartridge box book reveals a good blurb on the infamous English import goods used by Massachusetts troops, and a dandy pair of images.

[Iron Scout]

Charles,

Thanks for posting that link as I found it rather amusing. An odd combination of unsupported assumptions and real fact-interesting. Anyway, I can't wait to set the record straight (very soon I might add) on this whole Southern importation thing. Calling Mr. McRae, calling Mr. Huse...

Regards,

Neill Rose

[Charles Heath]

Thanks for posting that link as I found it rather amusing.

Get any whiplash from your neck snapping back to 1997? :D

[1stMaine]

Charles, et al,

I'll see if I can figure out the scanner function on the multi-printer thingy here and post a couple images of British cartridge boxes with cap boxes attached. I'll also drag out the dates and names of the contractor who removed them for Mass and converted them in to belt-patterned ones.

One image I have is of an Enfield box picked up off the field at Gettysburg. It has the outer flap removed, but still retains the attached cap box. It was attributed by the finder to a CS soldier.

Respects,

[Iron Scout]

Tim,

I'd like more information on that possible CS box as no other I&C marked or ID'd CS/English box has that provision. Huse clearly purchased sets that consisted of the ball bag singularly and sometimes with the sling mounted model. Thanks,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[1stMaine]

Neil,

The image I have is taken from "North/South Trader, May-June 1985", and appears on pp 25. The Box itself resides in the Milwaukee Public Museum. Years ago, when I enquired about info on the box through them, they responded that it was picked up at Gettysburg by a soldier from Milwaukee "from a Confederate soldier" and sent home. I haven't enquired any more about the box since then (probably 1988 or so). I'll have the pic up in the morning, when I figure out this new technology.....

Meanwhile, to add some data to the mix...

The "Report of the Master of Ordnance, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2 January 1865" , (part of the Mass. AG reports), shows that in 1862 a contract was let to a company, 'James Boyd & Sons' in the amount of $3,825.33 for the altering of 7,998 English cartridge boxes and 7,867 English cartridge box belts.

The only thing that could be altered on those boxes, which would have incurred such a large contract price, is the removal of the cap box from it's front face and remaking it to have been worn as in the American system.

Extant record show that, in Cambridge, on hand for issue on 31 Dec of 1862, were 519 altered English cartridge Boxes (emphasis mine), 388 belts for same, 399 'English black leather waistbelts with hooks', and 392 'cap or loading pouches'. Also on hand (interestingly enough) were 2,000 unaltered complete sets of English accoutrements in russett (again, emphasis mine).

The previous sets on hand that had been altered (of 10,000 complete sets purchased by the Commonwealth) had been placed in storage at the Cambridge Arsenal in December of 1861. Thus, deducting those on hand from the total inventory, some near 7,000 sets were issued during the middle to latter part of 1862. The 2,000 sets of Russett were issued in 1864 to 9 month's regiments called up for duty.

More tomorrow... I promise!!!

Respects,

[1stMaine]

Comrades,

Well, if this works, then attached you will find two scans showing a CS-attributed Enfield box with attached cap pouch. Also is an illustrative plate from Captain Petrie's book on British Army Equipments, dated 1865, showing current issue items.

Respects,

[DBURT]

Tim,
Fascinating box.Could this be one of the "650 sergeant's accoutrements"
sent in by Huse, and accounted for by Gorgas on Feb 3rd 1863???
Dave Burt

[Richmond Depot]

I have an original russett cap pouch in my collection along with white buff ready round pouch. I will try and photograph both and post on here before I put them on ebay.

Yes, that appears to be a Sgt.'s box with the flap removed. Note that it has the pouch for the tool along with the cap pouch. I have a friend who modifies the Enfield cartridge boxes to this configuration and they look pretty good.

[LWhite64]

A couple of comments. First of all, with the shipments of the British boxes with cap pouch attached, did they also send cap pouches? Second, another image in which you can see one of these boxes in the rosewood farm pic of the disemboweled confederate. Can someone scan that one and post it? I cant get a good copy to scan myself.

Lee

[1stMaine]

Lee,

From examining the records of the Croweshield purchases for Massacusetts (sorry, no CS on hand at the moment) it appears that the sets included a box with attached cap box, a waistbelt with snake buckle, a cartridge box belt, a bayonet scabbard, and a "ball bag" or "expense pouch".

The latter was issued to some regiments along with the cartridge boxes (with the cap boxes removed, apparently) in lieu of a cap box, and this can be seen in images of the 44th Massachusetts, one of the only two 9-month's regiments to recieve complete sets of English pattern accoutrements from the state(the other being the 6th MVM). Interestingly enough, upon examining the ball or expense pouch, there is, stitched onto the back inside wall, a small pocket designed to hold 12-24 percussion caps. It is plain leather, with no fleece, wool, or other material, and no flap over the little pocket. It's open-topped.

FWIW, Les Jensen either owns, or has access to, a snake-buckle waistbelt with such a ball bag attached to it (worn where the cap box would normally be) that is ID'd to Pvt. C.H. Leighton, Co. "I", 44h Mass. The ball bag exhibits the same internal cap pockret as described above.

Also, it's interesting to note that Massachusetts, at least, didn't differentiate much about what arms were issued to accompany these equipments. At least 3 regiments ( 3rd, 4th, & 8th M.V.M.) were issued Austrian Rifle Muskets, M1855 and English accoutrements, with the exception of the bayonet scabbard, the Austrian pattern being issued therein; and 2 regiments (46th & 51st) which were issued with M1841 rifles (Robbins and Lawrence) again, though, with bayonet scabbards designed to fit a elongated socket bayonet which accompanied the R&L rifles.

Seeing how common it was for Massachusetts to break up sets, issuing part English and part American based upon the bayonet and/or what was on hand, one has to wonder if the same might not be said of the various CS issues. As in Massachusetts, a cartridge box is a cartridge box, and a belt is a belt. The QM wouldn't care where it came from or what pattern it was, as long as the ammunition fit well enough and the item was servicable.

Respects,

[Richmond Depot]

The concept of the cap pouch being on the cartridge box is fairly simple and pretty neat. The cartridge box was actually intended to be a reservoir only for extra cartridges and caps. The cartridges one might need for battle would be stored in your ready round pouch worn on the front of your belt in the location where we would wear our cap pouch. Your caps would be worn in your chest mounted cap pouch located on your WIDE cartridge box strap on the front of your chest.

The reason for the strap being wide is that the cap pouch is held in place by friction. The loop on the cap pouch is cut and sewn slightly smaller than the width of the cartridge box strap making a very tight fit which serves to create the friction needed for the cap pouch to remain in place. To date, I have not seen any photo's of Federals using this rig, only Rebs.

I have seen the pics of the Mass. troops wearing the narrow cartridge box strap and guess that they would be using a different type of carrier for the Percussion caps. A few years ago, I owned an original "expense" pouch and as my friend from Mass. described it, there was a small pocket on the inside that I believed to be used to store caps.

It should be noted however, that the Ready Round Pouches were also made with and without the inner pocket like the pocket in the expense pouch. My 1861 dated original does not have this feature. However, there is one in the SCCRR that if I remember correctly does have this feature.They do seem to consistently have the oiler loop sewn insde.

Additionally, I have wondered if the Brit. gear was actually imported in complete sets with the intention of being issued as such with the Enfield?

One of my favorite photo's is of Thomas Taylor, standing ,with what appears to be a 1855 Springfield wearing the Enfield box. Maybe the British stuff was mixed in circulation from the QM? Thoughts guys ?

[1stMaine]

Comrades,

What Scott is talking about is exactly true: IE, the cartridges in the English accoutrement system, were kept in bundles in the cartridge box. As rounds were needed, a bundle was taken out, broken open, and the individual cartridges were placed into the "expense pouch" or "ball bag". These were then drawn out and fired, and when all 10 were expended, the process was repeated.

This system actually allowed for ease if firing, since the rounds were kept in what was essentially a belly box, worn where the American system places the cap pouch. The soldier then needed only to reach up to his breast an obtain a cap, or into the small pocket of the expense pouch, and voila! There you go. It all depends, of course on the type of cap box and cartridge box being used. Whether it was designed for a Guards regiment, or a Line regiment.

ScottL It occurs to me also that perhaps the ball bag without the inner cap pouch might have been made later for the Snyder and/or Martini Henry where caps weren't needed anymore? Or even perhaps have had the pouch removed for use with the later systems like the Slade-Wallace? I'm just guessing off the top of my head here, as I can't really say either way.

Respects,

[LWhite64]

Found a copy, notice the box above the trigger guard.

Lee

[Richmond Depot]

Going to try and put some photo's on. It worked !!! It won't let me add any more because I am over my limit. But, it gives ya'll something to look at. The cap pouch is definitley not the type one would expect to see come from a contractor of the crown. Stitch count is about 9-10 stitches per inch on the cap pouch and 10-12 stitches per inch on the Ready Round pouch.

[Poague41stVA]

Tim,

I tried printing it off and also zooming in, but it just gets to fuzzy. Can you make out the measurements for the buff and also the black leather cartridge box slings, length and width on the original? Are the tabs sewn to the belt?

Thanks
Dave Bushmole

[jgr1974]

Well I put a big long post in here in refference to cap pouches. For some reason, it never made it to the forum! I will try to repost what I posted earlier, tomorrow! The cap pouch listed with the 1861 expense pouch is circa 1855. The type of pouch we commonly see hanging from box straps is circa 1861. These pouches are Civil War period, but more than likely used by Canadian militia. I will explain later!

[1stMaine]

Dave,

Both straps are listed, as best as I can make out, at 2&1/8 inches wide... It's hard to get close enough with the printing to tell, but I believe I am correct.

As to lengths, the buff leather strap is listed in 3 lengths: 50", 53". & 54". The Black leather is listed as available for issue in 50". 52". & 54" lengths. Why the differences is beyond me, but there must be some reason.....

Both types of cartridge box straps have their ends sewn on, the stitching is shown on my copy, but how accurate it is, or whether the illustration is meant only to show that they were stitched, I cannot say. Note, however, that the buff strap has three adjustment holes, whereas the black one only has two. Also not that both tabs have pointed, vice rounded ends.

Respects,

[DBURT]

Gents,
Thanks to everyone for all the helpful posts, I for one have learned a lot.
Now I return to my original post.Is there any information out there on the so called " Enfield cap box"

There is a picture of this box on page 82 of Collecting the Confederacy, and one is featured on page 230 of the WC Davis book "Fighting men of the Civil War".
I have tried ,apart from this forum, the National Army Museum at Chelsea, London,but nothing has been forthcoming on this "Mystery box"

We have learned of the "Ball bag" being imported, and the 1845 sling mounted pouch, which we see in various Confederate photos,but virtually nothing on this box.They must have been issued, the existing ones prove it.

But was it made in England just for CS troops,because they liked to wear the belt mounted box?
Thanks Gents, a wonderful disscusion.
Dave Burt

[Iron Scout]

Dave,

This is one of those questions we may never know. The grouping of documents I'm currently working with cover the early war period and list complete sets as containing:

Frog
Ball bag
Pouch
Pouch belt
Waistbelt
**Sometimes you'll see the Cap Pocket listed too.

These are all CS purchases as complete sets. Todd's Military Equipage also lists one of the boxes you're talking about as being owned in the Sid Kerksis collection. These obviously came from somewhere. Who knows, a later custom order for the Confederacy? Examples also show that imprinted 'CS' too.

Neill Rose
PLHA

[davim19]

As well as being in your company in the ACWS. I also portray British infantry of the 1850's. We have got some re-created cap pouches for the period that were taken from an existant pouch in the Green Howards museum, Yorkshire. If you would like some pics and specs, let me know and I'll forward them to you.

Matt Davis
co. E 1st Tenn. vols.

[PFLINT]

I was wondering about waistbelt mounted cap pouches. The styles I have seen referenced are the "P1854" pouch, which has no fleace to keep the caps in and has a pleat in the band holding the front and back pieces together, and another with the finial rivited on the bottom of the belt strap (I think Jaragain makes a box of this type). Can anyone comment on how frequently (or not) these boxes were used by Southern soldiers? I've yet to see any photos of belt mounted brit pouches.

[davim19]

Just until I get a chance to take photos of my british leather work, I thought I would post this picture of a recreated british unit. You can see the cap pouches on the belts. The cartridge boxes (apart from the corporals) are all fixed to the carrying ring on the back of the waistbelt as well as the sling (to relieve the weight from the soldiers shoulder and stop it from bashing on the leg).
I know it's only a small recreated unit but all the equipment is exact copies from existant originals in british regimental museums, and the portrayal taken from primary resources and Fenton photographs.

Matt Davis
1st Tenn co. Ehttp://www.19thfoot.co.uk/images/berwick2006_sharon_195.jpg

[pipthelimey]

Contact the Atlanta History Center. We got to view an original, belt-mounted cap pouch that had English attribution.

Kind Regards,
Andrew Jerram

[DBURT]

Apart from the superb photos in the new book Cadet Grey & Butternut Brown.
Does anyone have any photos of Confederate Soldiers wearing English imported accoutrements?
In particular the sling mounted Cap Pouch and Ball Bag (Expence Pouch) ?
Seen many photos of the snake buckle belt and cartridge box in evidence but very few of troops wearing cap pouch and Ball Bag.
Dave Burt, ACWS, England.

[Charles Heath]

Nice thread about this very topic on the WCC and a parallel thread was on this forum, as well.

[DBURT]

I would like to expand the original question.Does anyone have any photos of original English imported Ball Bags,and the sling mounted 1845 Cap Pouch?
If anyone has visited museums, and have photos,please post them.
Dave Burt, ACWS UK

[militiaman1835]

I was wondering if anyone knew if the british import cartridge box slings, cap pouches (one for sling carry), and bayonet frogs were in white buff? JIM HENSLEY

[dnaples]

This issue was brought up before the crash. Actually if anyone has the pictures from that thread, the ones of the use of 1845 British cap pouches by Confederates that would be cool to put back up. I believe it was said that white buff was supplied to British Guard units and black was supplied to regular British infantry units, but it seems that the colors intermixed when they crossed the Atlantic.

[Charles Heath]

Jim,

If you'll pick up a copy of "The MuzzleLoading Rifles 1855-1867" printed prior to 1998, it will elminate much of the speculation and campfire BS. This essay shows up in the CS version of a sort of Hardcracker Handbook, but was originally "Chapter 2" in something else.

[jgr1974]

Black and White.

Both would be plausible in '62. My understanding in Britain, white was used for regular line infantry, and black was for rifle regiments. I have a book on Canadian accouterments of the era, I can't remember it's name at the moment. I will break it out and see what it says. I would imagine that once the equipment reached it's final destination, it was colored black either by regimental orders, or by the soldier himself! I wonder if the white leather was bought at a lower price as was undyed shoes? I recall accounts of undyed shoes even being free to the government.

White accouterments went out of style in the early 1850's for the US government. I can't remeber the year exactly, but all white buff was ordered to be blackened.

As a side note. I have seen several oringinal examples of British accouterments on Ebay. Many are the 1861 expense pouch. Most of the expense pouches are white buff. Though they may be from the correcty period, I doubt if any were used in the American Civil war. Many of these were sent to Canada, I believe during '62 to militia units for fear of possible US invasion. A number were sent in later years as the British swithced to carteride rifles, the "inferior" weapons, and accouterments were sent to militia in Canada.

A friend of mine has a Brunswick pouch in his private collection. This is different than the 1861 expense pouch. it is a little smaller, and was issued with the Brunswick rifle from the early 1840's era. The pouch has a few field modifications, but is black!

One more thought before I close. I do not know if the picture is still in the archives, but there is an 1855 British expense pouch mislabled. I believe it says it is a cavalry carbine box. Though it may have been used for that after entering the America's, it was not it's original intent.

Here are the ramblings of a Mad Mick!!!

[Iron Scout]

Jeremy, etc.

A few ideas here. First, be careful with blanket statements like "...I doubt if any were used in the American Civil War". There are actually a good many examples of buff CS goods despite popular reenactor perception. The first is a cap pocket ID'd to a NC soldier in 1864. This resides in the MOC and is pictured in the EOG. The other two are buff snake belts ID'd as battlefield pickups; one at Sharpsburg and the other at Gettysburg. There are also bulk leather purchases by Caleb Huse for 'buff' which is differentiated specifically from 'black waxed flesh' in the McRae Papers.

As for the box that was pictured in the archives. Having inspected the original, I firmly believe this is a marked I&C carbine box. Old South Military Antiques used to own this box and the wear from the tin(s) was clearly visable. Likewise, there are a number of specific orders for carbine boxes from Alexander Ross and Co. Just as a note, there is no mention or use of the term 'expense pouch' in any of Huse's or McRae's documents, only terms such as ball bags, cap pockets, pouches, etc.

Lastly, to answer the original question from my own humble inspections of institutional and private collections over 15 years:

cap pouches AKA 'pockets'-buff, black waxed flesh and (yes!) brown bridle
frogs-have only seen black waxed flesh
cartridge box slings-buff, black waxed flesh and black bridle

Hope this helps, but remember, this is an expansive topic that is hard to put in an ironclad box of diffinitive statements.

Regards,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[MuleyGil]

"White accouterments went out of style in the early 1850's for the US government."

Except in the US Marine Corps. Black leather wasn't authorized until late in the War of Northern Aggression.

[jgr1974]

Neil,

Thank you and some clarification from me- When I stated the doubt of being used in the CW I was reffering to the ones as seen on ebay. Most if not all that I have seen carry the broad arrow mark. This meant crown property, and not for export.

I am aware of whit buff examples, and do not believe they were uncommon. Just not as prevelant. I agree with you, Militaman opened a can of worms!!! I have not read the Mcrae papers, but would really love to! For some reason, the British equipment intersts me! I know there is always new resources on the market, and knowledge is constantly changing!

I will add a pet peive of my I see most reenactors making the mistake on British "Enfield" frogs. Most reenactors use the type of frog which has a strap and buckle across the frog. These were meant to be used with sword style bayonets. The triangle type bayonet frog did not have a strap and buckle!

J

[PenPusher]

Those of you interested in British Accoutrements may like to find a copy of "Soldiers' Accoutrements of the British Army 1750-1900" by Pierre Turner; Hardcover; avialable from Amazon. This has scale, colour drawings of accoutrements from this period.

[1stMaine]

Neil,

Thank you and some clarification from me- When I stated the doubt of being used in the CW I was reffering to the ones as seen on ebay. Most if not all that I have seen carry the broad arrow mark. This meant crown property, and not for export.

I am aware of whit buff examples, and do not believe they were uncommon. Just not as prevelant. I agree with you, Militaman opened a can of worms!!! I have not read the Mcrae papers, but would really love to! For some reason, the British equipment intersts me! I know there is always new resources on the market, and knowledge is constantly changing!

I will add a pet peive of my I see most reenactors making the mistake on British "Enfield" frogs. Most reenactors use the type of frog which has a strap and buckle across the frog. These were meant to be used with sword style bayonets. The triangle type bayonet frog did not have a strap and buckle!

J

Jeremy,

The part about the bayonet frogs is not correct. The frog without the strap and buckle was to be made of buff, whereas the pattern with the strap and buckle is of black leather, and both were intended for use with the traingular scabbard for the socket bayonet.

Also, the illustrative plate shows no "expense pouch" but, rather, lists it as a "ball bag" which is the same nomenclature as seen in the McRae invoice posted in the Preservation folder.

For what it's worth, the only pouch for percussion caps illustrated is that which has the angled loop for wearing on the cross belt. This was apparently designed for use with the boxes for Guards regiments, as boxes for Line and Rifle have the cap pouch sewn directly to the right front face of the cartridge box, under the outer flap. This latter is the style delivered to Massachusetts.

Having said that, it is interesting to note that extant images of Massachusetts soldiers wearing English accoutrements (which were limited to certain regiments at certain times) have them wearing the "ball bag" as a cap pouch.

See: "Equipment of Infantry" , plate 15, by Capt. Martin Petrie, 1865; depicting the accoutrements used by the Rifles, Line, and Guard regiments.

Addtionally, all 10,000 sets of accoutrements purchased by Massachusetts from England were of either black or russet leather. No buff was used, not even on the cartridge box closure tabs.

I have included a scan of Peterie's plate, and an image of a CS field-modified English box with the cap pouch still attached. The latter was collected from the field at Gettysburg.

Respects,

[Marc29thGA]

Nice thread – I am intrigued with the British accoutrements in Confederate service as well. Before the crash there was a thread (from 2004?) on the ball bag and expense pouch that I frequented in my quest for knowledge. Does anyone have this archived and could post it again? I can't find it in the "search" anymore.

Regards,

[Richmond Depot]

This is my favorite image of British gear. Note the correct Enfield sling and BUCKLE.

[Richmond Depot]

Fellows,

The original intent of the Enfield cartridge box was to serve as a "reservoir" of extra cartridges and caps, and not originally intended to be used in the American fashion of being pulled from directly though it could be if needed.

In a combat type of situation, rounds would be pulled from the ready round pouch and caps of course would be in the chest mounted cap pouch. If you look closely at the image that I posted above at left, the flap of the ready round pouch is just barely visible.

The cartride box strap is also a very cool piece of gear. The end tabs ( with holes for cartridge box buckles) were sewn directly to the strap. The thought process behind this was that if the holes ripped out, new tabs could be sewn on.

[1stMaine]

Comrades,

Absolutely correct. The intent of the English cartridge box may be easily discerned by the arrangement of the tin dividers. Unlike the American system, the tin was divided into compartments to hold bundles of cartridges, not loose rounds.

One bundle at a time was taken from the tin, opened, and the rounds placed into the "ball bag" later known as the "expense pouch". The soldier drew from this lot, and when depleted, withdrew another bundle and started the process over.

Respects,

[47thNYReb]

Scott, I could not pull up the research information on the Enfield sling from your website. Could you post a little about it? I am not familiar with the buckle and would like to learn more. Thanks, Thomas N. Rachal.

[Knapsack Matt]

The English cap pouch that was carried on the sling was buff but some were dyed black. On the Cartridge Boxes the Tab was buff on some models like the volunteer one and some had buff slings.

Matt

[jgr1974]

Just for my own defense! I want to state that I am open to others opnions and new ideas! I know new research materials are always found and updates more frequently than some of us change our under drawers!

The book I am pulling My references from is called "Tangled Web" Canadian Infantry Accouterments 1855-1985 by Jack L. Summers. It was publised by Museum Restoration Service in 1992. The Canadian War Museum holds the copyright.

Bayonet frogs-I do not argue the fact that the "buckled" frog was used by both sides of the war for the triangluar bayonet. At a time when equipment is scarce, anything and everything is pressed into service. Soldiers are the best people to understand use and modify the equipment, as they know what works for them. My point is that there are not nearly enough "buckless" frogs in the hobby. The intended use of the buckle types were for the sword bayonet type. Again, not saying they were not used for the triangular bayonet! An example of the two types of frogs can be seen in EOG Union page 38 and 39. One interesting point I find of the triangular style frog (The top one.) is that it is made of one piece of leather! Typically the construction consists of two pieces, loop and the back of the frog, then the front piece which accepts the scabbard stud. According to the book, Tangled Web, there was a third type of frog. It's intent was for use by sappers and minors use of a saw backed sword type bayonet. It is made from three pieces of leather. It has a stud similar to the type that the frog/loop swivels so the bayonet could be swung out of the way for fatigue duties. I will try to scan a photo later.

Expense pouches-From my early statements, according to the book, says there are two basic styles The 1861 and the 1855. The pouches of the 44th Mass, are a little different, but are the same style as the 1861 pouch. The flap is a little different. a little more square,. I believe the 44th Mass expense pouch has a cap pouch as well. These were probably made by a certain contractor. I am curious. I do know they were taken from a blockade runner, which name escapes me as of now. These were probably a Confederate State contract. I know several individual CS states took the initiative to purchase their own accouterments overseas. While I am thinkgin of it I want to recomend another good book, "Guns for Cotton" my copy has been misplaced, but it not only talks of Union and Confederate purchases of accouterments and arms, but from individual states as well.

Cartridge boxes-TW states that the pouches with the sewn on cap pouch are actually earlier patterns dating from the War of 1812. They were converted to save money and pool resources of the government. These conversions happened in the early 1850's as England was adopting the percussion system.

Cap pouches-Like the American system they went through several changes. once the percussion system was adopted caps needed a place to rest. Early pouches were simple leather pouches with no loop. They were kept in the outer coatee pocket. some regiments started modifying them to fit on the waist belt for easier use. They eventually were modify by the goverment to be worn on the cartridge box sling around 1860.

I hope this information is not looked upon as simple ramblings of this crazy Irishamn,, but as another "amatuer historians' use of resources and personal opinions. It is not my intent to discourage or disagree with others, but to share the little knowledge I have learned on this subject!

Thank you all for your time,

The Mad Mick!!!

[LWebster]

Tim & Neill: As usual your comments are edifying.

The russett accoutrements issued to the Massachusetts regiments is intriguing. Here's perhaps a new twist for you. Back in the mid 1960's, a friend visited the fabled Bull Run Trader shop near Manassas, where he examined a British knapsack with russett corner caps. Now, this is a fellow who means russett when he says russett. I have never heard of another such example.

Buff ball bags and other accoutrements were indeed in Rebel hands by November of '61. I have records of buff accoutrements sent from Savannah and Charleston on to Atlanta, Nashville, and Augusta, if my my memory serves me correctly. I will admit that I find no mention of them after the summer of 1862.

The Ordnance Bureau must have found the ball bags not to their liking; there is a summer 1863 invoice for more than 1,000 ball bags being returned to the Richmond Store House, categorized as "scrap leather." The source from whence the ball bags were shipped is not identified. Were these new or used up? No easy way of telling, but the fact that they were a shipment solely consisting of ball bags, and that they were identified as scrap, leads me to think that were initially issued, found not to answer, and subsequently handed in.

I've also run across the issuance in Little Rock in December 1862 of sets of accoutrements with "an extra cap pouch." Given the influx of stores brought from over the river during this same time frame - including significant amounts of accoutrements and packs of English manufacture - these "extra cap pouches" were almost certainly ball bags / expense pouches. The Little Rock Military Storekeeper was simply unfamiliar with the nomenclature, at least that's my guess.

L.Webster

[Richmond Depot]

Thomas,

There were two known variations of buckles used on the Enfield sling. The variation that I have pictured above is the rectangular style. From period photographs and recovered specimens, this seems to be the type most commonly issued to to Southern troops. I own an original buckle of this type that was dug in the area around Fredericksburg back in the '90's.

The second style, and much rarer variation is the D shaped buckle. This buckle shows up in photographs of Northern troops, (probably Mass. boys )with some frequency. There is only one known example of this buckle so far that has been recovered and I believe that it is in a museum in the North East. Copies of this buckle came to me through Malcolm Adams.

Regarding Tangled Web mentioned above, I have thumbed through a copy but never been able to find one for sale here in the states. I know that the boxes issued to Sgt.'s and as pictured by Tim Kindred in an earlier posting were origially intended to be issued to Sgt.s in the service of the crown. I do not know if they were seperated out here upon arrival in the south for issue to Sgt.'s or if they were just randomly issued to the rank and file of Southern troops.

A quick way to tell a good reproduction Enfield box is by looking at the outer flap. There should be no visible stitching on the flap where the buff tab is applied. This is called a blind stitch and is a difficult stitch to do correctly and usually most of the mainstram makers will cheat by sewing all the way through the flap. The better reproductions, like thoes offered by Jarnigan, L.D. Haning and the soon to arrive box by E.J. Thomas Mercantile all have this feature.

[jgr1974]

Mr. Haines,

I was lucky to come across mine on ebay! It is a great book!!! Mr. Heath i would really like to read the book you quated, but have been unable to locate it! Could you give author and ISBN so i could locate it?

[Iron Scout]

Scott,

The method of attaching the billet to the pouch cover you mention is a "tunnel stitch" and you are very correct that few vendors have learned to do this properly. When inspecting originals, one will also find this on many English belts attaching the teardrop keeper to the belt itself. Interestingly enough, there is one A. Ross box I believe that Sharpsburg Arsenal had for sale where the billet did utilize a solid stitch through both billet and pouch cover.

This is a neat stitch where the awl is laid on it's side and used to split the inside or middle of the leather creating "tunnels". As with many items of English manufacture, they have a tendency to be over-engineered.

Regards,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[1stMaine]

Jeremy,

The Massacusetts English accoutrements are often erroneously presumed to be from a captured blockade runner. This notion came from an article in the Oct. 22nd 1862 edition of the "Boston Traveller" newspaper, which had an acount of the 44th Mass infantry. The last 2 paragraphs read:

" This corps is armed with Enfield rifles captured from an English steamer, and their belts, bayonet sheaths and cap-puches were similarly obtained.

The hank of the belt is a snake of brass- so emblematic of the vileness of the rebel cause. Probably the shippers little imagined they would be used against the rebels."

In fact, the English accoutrements were part of a contract for 10,000 sets and some "20,800 long Enfield rifles" negotiated by Francis B. Crowninsheild, who was acting as agent for Governor John Andrew and his council.

When the war broke out, Massachusetts found herself unable to supply all of her regiments with American pattern accoutrements, so she went abroad. By the time the English patterns arrived, sufficient sets of the American pattern had been obtained, so the Englisg were put into storage (although the boxes were modified to remove the cap pouches and rework them as in the American pattern system). Contracts for the modifications were let to James Boyd & Sons.

Some 2000 sets of russet acoutrements were placed into storage and issued in 1864. The remaining sets on hand were of black leather.

Having said all this, the issue of these accoutrements to regiments is not confined to the 44th Mass. There were only two regiments (44th & 6th MVM ) which had complete sets, and Enfield rifle-muskets. The remaining stocks were used in combination with American pattern sets to arm the rest of the 9 month's regiments of that call-up. These included:

3,4,&8 MVM: armed with Austrian rifle-musket, received English accourements, but with American pattern scabbards.

47th Mass: Austrian rifle-musket; American pattern accoutrements, but with English scabbards.

46 &51 Mass: Robbins & lawrence M1841 rifles, English accoutrements and American scabbards (custom made for longer socket bayonet).

For what it's worth, the Enfield rifle-muskets came partially from the Burmingham makers, and also from the London Armoury company as well as the firm of Barnett, Potts, & Hunt, also of London. Despite encroachments by Schuyler (of Schuyler, Hertley & Graham, NY) and Confederate agents, Crowninsheild still was able to send an initial issue of P-1853 models to Massachusetts in 1861 of 14,700 weapons. The rest followed shrtly thereafter.

The 2, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 & 27 regiments all drew arms from this intial contract in 1861. The 24th also drew Enfields, but returned all but 3 as unsuitable and exchanged them for M1861 Springfields.

Enfield rifle-muskets purchased by the state were considered to be state property and, as such, were marked on the butt plate with a rack/issue number, and an abbreviated reginental number and company letter. Excavated remains of these weapons, as well as extant examples bear out this stamping.


I am interested in the claim in TW that the cartridge boxes with the attached cap pouch were 1812 patterns modified for use with percussion muskets. Captain Petrie's drawings and his book were published in 1865 and were the official guide as to what was then in use in the British Army.

Respects,

[neocelt]

Very interesting discussion...

I recently had the opportunity of examining a number of British-made cartridge boxes and knapsacks in the Atlanta History Center collection, and I was gob-smacked by the attention to detail exhibited in all of the British leather products. Incidentally, the "hidden" stitch that's used on the finial closure tab is most commonly utilized for joining two relatively thick pieces of leather butted against each other edge-to-edge; hence (in my experience), it is generally referred to by saddlers and cordwainers as a "butt stitch". It is accomplished by employing a curved awl and needles.

Cheers,

[jgr1974]

Nick Hello!

You beat me to the technique of using a curved needle for the "hidden stitch". I am not sure where this style originates as it can also be found on accouterments of the Revolution on both American and British armies.

1st Maine, thank you for your information! I am just curious of your resources? I would love to have some items to refer back to at a later time. Especially if this site crashes again!!! I am making no claims to be an expert I am nearly stating my information as I know it. History as we know it is ever changing as new information is found like the Mcrae papers. (I am just curious, is there a plan to publish these so the public will have access to them in the future?

I took TW to work today to browse over, but did not get the time. Of course I left it at work! The boxes that were converted might have actaully been Crimean war vintage, but according to TW they, at least the early ones with pockets, were converted from pouches of an earlier era.

I to am interested in learning more of the sling. I think I have access to the proper type buckle, which would be imported from England!!!

I will continue to follow this thread as I find others input intriguing! I hope everyone can have an open mind as I have on this subject!

Nick, Make sure the cider is cold, and the whiskey well aged!!!

The Mad Mick!!!

[1stMaine]

Comrade Jeremy,

The majority of the information may be found in the 1861 & 1862 Adjutant General's Reports for Massachusetts. In them, you'll find the reports from the State Master of Ordnance which details the various issuances, conversions, contracts let, etc. These AG reports (which every state published, btw, as it was a part of their public records) are an often under-utlized source, especially for the federal reenactor. There is a wealth of data to be found within each volume, although it takes time to sort through because of their sheer size.

For a synopsis of the entire subject, as far as Massachusetts is concerned, I would refer you to the Vol.X, No.4 (may-june 1983) edition of North South Trader magazine. In it is an excellent article by Howard Michael Madaus which will answer many questions. His sources provided me with the starting point for my own research into the subject.

One interesting tangential aspect to this discussion, is the relationship between the English pattern accoutrements, and the M1841 Rifle. Massachusetts used such combinations, and also sold sets of English pattern accoutrements to both Maine and New Hampshire, along with equal numbers of M1841 Rifles. Something else to look into..... :)

Respects,

[FlatLandFed]

Friend Kindred,

What about the "non-states" during the time of the Civil War?

You note "Adjutant General's Reports for Massachusetts" is an example of a good place for federal records. Would Nebraska have an AG report done post-war? If so, do you think I should check with the State Historical Society first (where the GAR records and other types of "early military" files were moved decades ago) or is there a federal office that would have these?

Nebraska became a state in 1867. I know there are AG reports for that little fracas with the Spanish in '98 and of course WW I records, but do you think this exists for 1861-65?

Thanks for any thoughts that would steer me toward the right resource.

Paul Hadley

[1stMaine]

Paul,

I'd give a call to your stae archives and ask them about what records they might have pertaining to Nebraska territory troops during the Civil War. You never know what they might have.

I honestly can't answer your question, but they may well have had something similar to the AG reports for the territorial government.

Respects,

[Tim Prince]

3,4,&8 MVM: armed with Austrian rifle-musket, received English accourements, but with American pattern scabbards.

47th Mass: Austrian rifle-musket; American pattern accoutrements, but with English scabbards.

46 &51 Mass: Robbins & lawrence M1841 rifles, English accoutrements and American scabbards (custom made for longer socket bayonet).



Some intersting points are raised with the informaiton abovel. In the first case, the American pattern scabbards for the Lorenz bayonets would be either the diamond throat or oval throat 2-rivet style issued for use with those bayonets by the US government.

The 47th Mass is interesting in that it is either incorrect in saying that English scabbards were issued with the Lorenz rifle muskets, or the very rare US made socket bayonet for the Lorenz was issued with these guns. The Lorenz bayonet is quadrangle in cross section and would never fit in an Enfield style scabbard. SO, either these troops were issued Austrian scabbards (leather covered wood with a metal frog mount system similar to the British one) or the very rare US made Lorenz bayonet with a Lorenz style socket and an 1855 style blade. If they were indeed issued the Austrian scabbards, this would be the first good proof I have seen of those scabbards being used by the US during the war. Very interesting either way.

The 46 & 51 Mass were obviously issued the "Drake" contract rifles with Drake bayonets. Essentially identical to the CS made Fayetteville bayonet, with the only real difference being the overall quality of manufacture and about .1 inch difference in socket diameter. The Drake bayonets were not marked on the blade, but usually had a number/letter combination on the socket. I jsut sold one with 31B on the socket. The blade is just under 20" long, which is why the extra long scabbard was required. You can see some pictures of a Drake bayonet here: http://www.collegehillarsenal.com/shop/product.php?productid=16321&cat=269&page=1

This is a very interesting discussion.

[DBURT]

In reply to Lon Webster's post, I find it hardly surprising that ball bags were returned to Richmond.
The British system of loading the P53 Enfield must have proved too over elaborate for both CS officers and soldiers alike, in comparison to the US system.
Plus there is evidence of I&C marked accoutrements being made into cap pouches.
So it has to be likely that these ball bags were sent back to Richmond and `reconstructed` into the favoured cap pouch.

Dave Burt, ACWS, UK.
ACWRTUK.

[1stMaine]

Some intersting points are raised with the informaiton abovel. In the first case, the American pattern scabbards for the Lorenz bayonets would be either the diamond throat or oval throat 2-rivet style issued for use with those bayonets by the US government.

The 47th Mass is interesting in that it is either incorrect in saying that English scabbards were issued with the Lorenz rifle muskets, or the very rare US made socket bayonet for the Lorenz was issued with these guns. The Lorenz bayonet is quadrangle in cross section and would never fit in an Enfield style scabbard. SO, either these troops were issued Austrian scabbards (leather covered wood with a metal frog mount system similar to the British one) or the very rare US made Lorenz bayonet with a Lorenz style socket and an 1855 style blade. If they were indeed issued the Austrian scabbards, this would be the first good proof I have seen of those scabbards being used by the US during the war. Very interesting either way.

The 46 & 51 Mass were obviously issued the "Drake" contract rifles with Drake bayonets. Essentially identical to the CS made Fayetteville bayonet, with the only real difference being the overall quality of manufacture and about .1 inch difference in socket diameter. The Drake bayonets were not marked on the blade, but usually had a number/letter combination on the socket. I jsut sold one with 31B on the socket. The blade is just under 20" long, which is why the extra long scabbard was required. You can see some pictures of a Drake bayonet here: http://www.collegehillarsenal.com/shop/product.php?productid=16321&cat=269&page=1

This is a very interesting discussion.


Tim,

Yes indeed. You are correct regarding the Drake bayonets. Although the M1841 rifles themselves were made by Robbins & Lawrence, Boston machinist A.J.Lawrence was contracted to modify them to take both his longer bayonet, and long-range sights. References to him & this contract are in the 1861 AG report.

As to the scabbard for the Austrian quadrangle bayonet, the "Master of Ordnance report(s)" only list the type of pattern (IE: English pattern, American pattern, etc) and the quantity of each. In regard to the 47th regiment, it lists 900 frogs & 940 scabbards of English pattern.

The more we know, the more questions..... sigh :)

Respects,

[LWhite64]

Some of the ball bags did make it into the field though, the 10th Mississippi Infantry had full sets of English accoutrements in the late summer of 1862, how long they kept them is in question.

Lee

[Tim Prince]

Tim,

Quite correct, AJ Drake was contracted to modify the M-1841's already in inventory. Re-bore them, add the long-range rear site, add the bayonet lug and supply bayonets. I should have made that clearer in the comment. The general consensus is that the Drake bayonets were British imports. One way or another I am very sure that they came from overseas. They are also quite similar to the Spanish M-1857 bayonet used on the Spanish made copy of the Enfield rifle that was imported in some very small quantities during the war.

I'd love to be able to distinguish whether they received Austrian scabbards or US made Austrian bayonets. As we all know, the Ordnance department was not always the most detail oriented group when it comes to recording data on imported items. Often similar things are grouped together, even if from different countries of origin. The constant lumping of French & Belgian arms into the same group is a good example. Since so few of the US made Austrian bayonets are extant, and since it seems that MA was handling their own equipment supplies in these cases, I would argue that this is likely proof of Austrian scabbards in use. You could cram an Austrian scabbard into an Enfield frog, and superficially they are similar scabbards, if only because of their mounting system. Very interesting.

[M.Latham]

Tim,

I don't see the problem in finding the US made Lorenz bayonet.

What gives?

Respectfully,

Mark Latham

[Tim Prince]

Mark,

VERY COOL! I know that you had your tongue firmly planted in your cheek on that last comment. Those are super rare, just like the other two weird US made import bayonets- the one for the Austrian M-1842 Lukart system and the one for the Potsdam. Both have the European style sockets and US M-1855 style blades. $500+ is fairly normal pricing for these rare beauties.

Thanks for sharing.

[M.Latham]

Tim,

Like this one? A little rough, but the best I have currently.

I felt like sharing...

Mark Latham

[bushwacker]

Gentlemen,
I am looking for any information that shows if the Enfield Rifles issued to either side were issued with Enfield Leathers or with US or CS leathers.

Joseph C. Perry

[Jimmayo]

Pictures of Soldiers with Enfield rifles can be found on line. You may have to look at many sites but they are there. Many have the US accrouterments on and I don't think the Enfield rifle is a prop since the bayonet scabbards are empty if the bayonet is on the rifle. I would post some but the pictures came from dealers web pages and I don't feel comfortable posting them with out giving credit and without permission.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"Leathers" being the "Enfield" pattern cartridge box, cap box, waistbelt, bayonet scabbard, and sling?

Curt

[Dignann]

British import accoutrements (http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9504)

Eric

[bushwacker]

What I'm wanting to know is; When Enfield Rifles were issued, were they issued with Domestic Accoutrements, or Did Enfield Accoutrements come with the Enfield Rifles. Are there records in an archive somewhere?

Bushwacker,
Joseph C. Perry

[nick19thind]

Both were used by the Confederacy although when the Enfield was issed to US troops they used regulation leathers except for the bayonet scabbard which was British made. The Federal army used a special frog for their Enfield bayonets to hold the sheath in the same position as the Springfield.
Massachusetts troops were issued the British snake belt, cartridge box, sling and cap pouch, seized in large quantities from CS blockade runners.

[1stMaine]

Both were used by the Confederacy although when the Enfield was issed to US troops they used regulation leathers except for the bayonet scabbard which was British made. The Federal army used a special frog for their Enfield bayonets to hold the sheath in the same position as the Springfield.
Massachusetts troops were issued the British snake belt, cartridge box, sling and cap pouch, seized in large quantities from CS blockade runners.


Comrade,

Go up a couple posts and read the thread linked to about British Accoutrements.

Your comments regarding Massachussetts troops are not correct. SOME regiments from that state received SOME parts of English Accoutrments, but only TWO regiments received entire sets. These were NOT from a captured blockade runner, but purchased in England by the Commonwealth's agent. Again, see the above thread for the particulars.

Respects,

[1stMaine]

What I'm wanting to know is; When Enfield Rifles were issued, were they issued with Domestic Accoutrements, or Did Enfield Accoutrements come with the Enfield Rifles. Are there records in an archive somewhere?

Bushwacker,
Joseph C. Perry


Comrade,

The short answer is no. There was never a policy on either side to issue Enfield weapons with English pattern accoutrements.

There were some cases where that did occur. There were cases where English accoutrements were issued with American or other pattern weapons (like Austrian Lorenz, etc) and other cases where Enfields were issued with E nglish accoutrements, (or partial sets thereof) etc.

To the issuing authorities on either side, the issuance of both weapons and accoutrements were predicated on what was at hand at the time of issuance, NOT the source of the issued items.

If you are looking to use English pattern accoutrements with an Enfield, then I am certain you can find a reference somewhere to justify this. However, the better solution is to examine the historical records for the unit you wish to portray to see exactly what was being issued to them. You'll find some surprising combinations in there.

Again, however, the short answer is that the issuing authorities could care less what accoutrements were issued with the weapon, as long as it was compatible, and in good order. Your PEC choice should always be for American pattern accoutrements, absent confirmed data of other issues.

Respects,

[militiaman1835]

I have seen for sale haversacks called british import or CS copy of british ones. They are large canvas with two leather closure straps and square rings with leather straps sewn on back to attache sling. Can anyone document these for me? In searching the web I found this photo and it is supposed to be the 1860's pattern. Looks close to the Moses Alexander one. In the list of changes later the sling buckle was replaced by a leather loop slide. Curious to know? JIM HENSLEY

[western reb]

Jim,

The only person that comes to mind in regards to assisting you with info./documentation on English imported haversacks is Don Smith of the Trans-Miss. Depot Co.

Best of luck on your research.

[Iron Scout]

Mr. Hensley,

It is my personal opinion that English pattern haversacks would have been a very rare article indeed to be seen in the CS ranks. First, the McRae Papers show only one reference to haversacks in the literal thousands of I&C invoices. Second, cotton was an obvious product in plentiful supply in the South, hence I seriously doubt that Huse would waste govenment funds on something so easily produced domestically.

I know that several vendors have reproduced these haversacks but I've yet to be convinced of their actual iron-clad use. I'd be very interested in seeing pictures of the original or at least information on the institution and/or private collection where they reside.

Bottomline IMHO, certainly focus on English gear for your impression but have your haversack be of domestic manufacture.

Regards,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[jgr1974]

Boyd miles does sell them. I would also echo the rarity. The haversack was not issued in the British army like it was issued in the American armies. British regulations of the day called for the issue of canteens and haversacks when on campaign. Haversacks were kept in stores whne troops where in garrison, so they were not highly produced items!

The Mad MIck!!!

[militiaman1835]

What I was wanting to know is where the pattern two strap one everybody sells came from? People claim they are copies of originals but I was wanting some documentation on originals. One vendor sells them for $75 a serious outlay of funds for something without documentation or original in museum or collection. I have an interest in british import goods but carry my hand sewn tarred CS sack.
Jim Hensley

[Richmond Depot]

Jim,

About 20 or more years ago, there was a haversack, believed to be of British origin that was making the rounds of the CW shows here in Richmond. This one was a white cotton type of fabric and featured some leather reinforcing on the front in the shape of a "Y"

This haversack, at the time was owned by Craig Carroll and I don't know anything about the provenance of the piece nor do I know where it is today. I never saw the bag, but have heard collectors talk about it for years and the gist of the conversations has always been, much like this discussion, about the validity of the piece.

Good topic Jim. :)

[Spongebucket]

Not 100%, but from what I see, it looks like a WW1 British gasmask bag for the hood design. I used to have a good repop and folks would comment on the "CS haversack". Now I know it is not CW discussion and the bag isn't a true copy of the previously mention bag. But it does favor it.
2 pennies
Joe Blunt

[Eureka Independent]

Hi All

The " Import Bag" that I have notes on are from 3 different haversacks, 2 in private collections that are vitually identical and 1 at Wilsons Creek NPS that is simmilar in some respects.

These haversacks have the simmilar following details.
1) Square Bag with Rectangular flap
2) 2 Buckles and straps on the front of the bag ( 2 of the bage have them arranged with the buckle section on the flap)

3) The shoulderstrap is attached to a ring, or in the case of the 2 identical ones to a square frame sewn to the bag by a leather tab.

4) all are missing their shoulder strap

The on eI copy has th e best provenance to a S. Carolina soldier and is complete with half of the soldiers folding pocket knife , fork & spoon.

It was sold by The Georgetown UDC #2048, And is identified to a Pvt B. L Fraizer, as marked on his haversack.

These bags all show attributes of private British manuifacture, matching other know British items detials ( Buckles, Attachment methods, etc). Showing typical marks of English manufacture of items ( Well engineered )

If folks have any questions about the baggs I have looked at . I will be happy to discuss the details of the bags I have notes on . Feel free to contact me ( Phone is best)

At any rate these bags would be probably not too awful common ( but common enough that there are examples)

Hope this helps
All the best

Don S


The on eof the

[militiaman1835]

In all the British accoutrement books like Pierre Turners the one I posted photo of is the issue pattern bag of the 1860's and earlier british army. The 65th foot in Australia does 1860's and this is from their equipment list also. Nothing like the one with two straps and buckles is shown in any books I have seen. I just wanted to know the documentation on it. Perhaps it IS british issue and a CS import BUT may not be a haversack, rather some other item maybe a clothing bag? like US issued in the 1870's. I am going to continue to research this item by contacting several of the royal regimental museums in the UK. JIM HENSLEY

[Malingerer]

So, here's where things stand currently: I have a brand new Isaac and Campbell knapsack and a set of English mess tins with cover. My question is, how do I strap/attach my mess tins to the outside of my knapsack? There just doesn't seem to be any attachment points - am I missing something? Thanks in advance.

[Knapsack Matt]

The mess kit came with a bag designed to hook on to the back of the pack. I have an I&C and a mess kit, my next project is to make one. You can find pictures of the design in some books and probaly on the internet.

Matt

[Matt_E_Wright]

The mess tin cover should have leather loops (like the loops that hold the overcoat straps on top of the federal double bag knapsack) and your I&C pack should have two rectangular metal loops as well. A leather strap running around your messkit through both the loops on the cover and the rectangular loops on the knapsack will attach the messkit to the knapsack.

My question is:

While we know that both English knapsacks and messkits were imported; is there any evidence that any Soldier in the American Civil War ever actually carried the messkit attached to the knapsack in the style of their British counterparts?

and my follow on question is:

What are the odds that a Confederate Soldier would be issued both an English knapsack and an English messkit? Were enough messkits imported to plausibly make this combination PEC?

Thanks,
Matt Wright

The "waxing nostalgic for the 'canteen half attached to the outside of the canteen' debate" Mess

[Jefferson Guards]

If you check out this document you will see that the knapsacks and mess tins were being purchased as a unit

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4149&d=1171302322

Further research and crunching the numbers indicates that there were at least 20 thousand English knapsacks in the south prior to the battle of Sharpsburg.

Every communication, manifest, or invoice I have seen lists the knapsack and mess tin as a single unit. I have never found any evidence that the mess tins were removed from the knapsacks and issued seperately.

Now if we can only find a tinsmith willing to do a proper reproduction of a messtin!

I have also included a photograph of an original mess tin cover in the GNMP collection

[Dignann]

Further research and crunching the numbers indicates that there were at least 20 thousand English knapsacks in the south prior to the battle of Sharpsburg.
Brian,

Just out of curiosity, what sources did you consult and how did you arrive at that number?

Eric

[Jefferson Guards]

The sources I consulted to come up with that number were the McRae documents and Neill Rose can also attest to those same numbers.

And these numbers jive with the "Abstract of summary statement showing quantity and value of army supplies purchased and shipped by Maj. C. Huse on account Confederate States Government" which was indorsed on February 3, 1863. In it, it lists 34,655 knapsacks, complete as being purchased and shipped.

[LibertyHallVols]

Brian,

Did you note whether or not the overcoat straps were also included, as well?

Thanks!

[Jefferson Guards]

John,

I guess it all depends on how you interpret the available information. On the referenced invoice it lists the item as "Knapsacks, straps, mess tin + mess tin covers, complete" other records list them as "Knapsacks, complete." So, are these "straps" that are being listed, the overcoat straps, or are they the straps that allows a soldier to wear the knapsack?

[Rob Weaver]

Forgive my ignorance: How does that contraption button around the messkit? Does it fold around the back and button? Is it tarred canvas?

[Jefferson Guards]

The mess tin fits into the cover and then the cover is buttoned closed enclosing the mess tin inside. The cover in the GNMP collection is of painted linen.

[Malingerer]

Matt, et al.,
So, am I correct in understanding your instructions as indicating that the tins + cover are strapped to the top of the knapsack. Forgive my ignorance, but I always had the impression that they were strapped to the back of the knapsack. Thanks for the input.

[Dignann]

Peter,

Although these photos are not of an American Civil War I&C knapsack and mess tin, they are from roughly the same period and of roughly the same style. I'm no expert on British goods, such as I&C packs, so if this is wrong, someone please point it out.

This particular set is in the The Green Howards Museum (Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own Yorkshire Regiment - 19th Foot) in Richmond, North Yorkshire.

Eric

[Malingerer]

Eric,
Those photos help tremendously. All I have to do now is come up with a strap and I'm all set. Thank you.

[Rob Weaver]

That is a big help. What I know about British field gear you could probably put in a thimble. I do have a British messkit, though. Does anyone make a pattern for the cover or should I use the photos and take the measurements from my kit?

[Iron Scout]

Folks,

Well, I couldn't have said it better myself Brian. Yes, after adding up the Huse invoices in the McRae Papers, there were no less than 20K packs with tins, straps, complete in the Southern state prior to Sharpsburg. If you'll go back to my original posting on the Papers, you'll see that the Papers challenge many of our notions regarding the Blockade, especially early. PS-stay tuned for a big McRae announcement soon!

Regards,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[drsimm1776]

:confused_
I need a supplier for the Isacc Campbell knap sack hardware - i.e. the brass hooks for the straps etc.
Anyone know of a supplier?
Don

[Matt_E_Wright]

An interpretation question...

For those of you with access to the McRae papers, are there multiple invoices (besides the one that's been posted) that specifically mention mess kits? Or, do the majority simply say "knapsack, complete" or words to that effect?

Just curious,
Matt Wright

[Matt Woodburn]

Try Cody Mobley, The Company Tailor or Jim Kindred, Military Warehouse.

[DougCooper]

Hanover Brass has them as well.

[DougCooper]

Rob (and all) - a check of Nick ************'s site shows the mess kit cover. http://www.nj************.com//OSCommerce/catalog/index.php?cPath=31&osCsid=c9bf6730722e010795f172075aa70c4e

I have one of these and it is superb. This is one of those hard to find and vastly under-represented items. Nick mentions that the strap for the kit is sold separately so recommend you contact him (did not see it on the site).

The mess kit fits neatly on top the knapsack via the buckles described. On occasion I have tossed it inside the pack when room permitted. Remember that you can store food or other items inside the mess kit as well - a handy thing to do.

[Jefferson Guards]

An interpretation question...

For those of you with access to the McRae papers, are there multiple invoices (besides the one that's been posted) that specifically mention mess kits? Or, do the majority simply say "knapsack, complete" or words to that effect?


There are multiple invoices in the McRae papers that mention mess kits, but there are also communications in the Offical Records that mention them also.

[wade03]

List,
I'm not sure wether someone has brought this up before, if so please direct me to where it is. I was wondering if the "popular Mainstream" enfield bayonet frog(sits verticle on the belt and has a buckle to hold the bayonet in place) was used in the war by confederates. Anyone?

[1stMaine]

Comrade,

I would suggest you use the search function with the words "english accoutrements" etc, on this site. there are several threads dealing with these items.

Respects,

[Ken Knopp]

For those of you interested in 19th century or Confederate leather, David Jarnagin and I (Ken R Knopp) have finally published our article (CONFEDERATE LEATHER, BLACK OR BROWN, HOW AND WHERE?) in the current (August) issue of the NORTH SOUTH TRADER’’S MAGAZINE (offices located in Orange, Va.).
We feel this article makes public some very important new information relative to leather colors and types used in the manufacture of Confederate accoutrements and saddlery. Helpful at the very least, to identifying leather origins both domestic (southern or northern tanned) and imported. It also provides an overview of Confederate leather production and the very complicated and largely misunderstood 19th century tanning processes.
Due to the competitive nature of the leather business and the complex chemical reactions involved (often not understood even by the tanners themselves), 19th century tanners were often very secretive about their trade practices. Moreover, modern vegetable tanning process are vastly different today leaving little opportunity for comparison. As a result the information we discovered was difficult to unravel, understand and then to explain in laymen’s terms. Because of the above, sadly, much of it is also likely lost forever.
Our view is that for years collectors, reenactors and historians have been laboring under significant misconceptions and are generally very ill informed about leather particularly about the cause/effects of leather colors and dyes. Another example of what we have learned is that a thorough understanding of war time leather tanning and finishing can sometimes enable one to identify what kind and often the origins (Northern, Southern or imported British) of the leather used in an artifact. This can go along way to collaborating legitimate artifacts and maybe more importantly, identifying fakes. This article begins to address “some” of these questions however, it is not meant to be an in depth study but rather a general overview.
Several years of study went into this effort. The documentation used came from several rare 19th century tanning manuals/books, CS & US archival records, knowledgeable collectors as well as wonderful insights provided by one of the oldest and most experienced “leather men” in American today. For us, one of the more interesting aspects to come out of this study was the discovery that leather tanning in its day was both a science and an art form. Tanning required considerable in depth knowledge of intricate chemical processes and their reactions. Considering that tanners started with raw, quickly rotting hides from cattle, horses (and a vast array of other animals) and ended with any one of a wide variety of finely finished multiple use products, tanning in that day was truly an art form akin to making quality jewelry, furniture or other high skill craft items.
This is the second of what we hope with be many similar articles. Our first leather article was published in the Company Journal of Military Historians (Hemlock Leather- The Federal Ordnance Department’’s Other War. Journal of the Military Collector & Historian, The Company of Military Historians, Washington DC., Vol. 57, No. 1 -- Spring 2005). More are in production.

We are promoting the publishing of this article as a means to educate and share information. There are no commissions nor any payment made whatsoever for our efforts. This is truly a labor of love. In addition, we do not represent this article as the “end all” on the subject and like all published historical pieces there will be mistakes. We accept the responsibility for those. We hope you will pick up a copy and enjoy it for its intended purpose that is, another brick in the building of historical enlightenment. I enclose some “brief”” excerpts from the article:

Ken R Knopp

As any artifact collector or reenactor knows there are two primary colors when it comes to Civil War era leather- black and brown (“russet”). It was thought for many years that Confederate leather equipment was russet and all black leather was Federal...... But what about the different shades of russet that are found from chocolate to light brown to yellow? Can we tell what is more likely to be Confederate?.........

.....a basic understanding of the vegetable tanning operation is needed..... Nineteenth century tan yards had three distinct departments, each designed to transform the raw hide as it passes on its way to becoming useable leather..........

........In all vegetable leather tanning, then as now, color is nothing more than the natural color of the leather after the tanning processes; that is to say, whatever color the bark gives to the leather. Various barks were used but by far, the two most common in the 19th century were oak and hemlock tree bark. Each strikes a unique color and ......

...........oak tanned leather could be dyed a permanent deep, rich black; however,........ Due to it acidic nature hemlock tanned leather could not permanently accept black dye solutions. Despite tanners routinely cheating the process with special paints or dyes, Hemlock tanned leather would always eventually (often quickly) fade to a chocolate brown color so often seen in surviving artifacts. This was a big problem for the Federal Ordnance Bureau.......

.......Although official regulations both North and South prescribed leather be dyed black, delivery receipts from many southern tanneries contracted by the Confederacy suggest that this was not routine. In general, early war production tended to include more black dyed leather while russet was far more common later in the conflict. This was especially true of..............

........another dark brown russet color similar to faded hemlock and quite often seen in Confederate equipment comes from imported English leather (sometimes called “London” leather). This is not a black faded to brown leather but a unique, rich brown color tanned overseas from English oak bark and stained using a staining formula different but ...............

........For the South, obtaining leather regardless of color was an incessant problem. The South’s domestic manufacture during the war was severely limited by a lack of infrastructure, labor and transportation.................

...Following President Davis’ directive, the Quartermaster Bureau, with the responsibility for providing shoes and transportation equipment, was given top priority, while the responsibilities of the Ordnance Bureau: cartridge boxes, cap boxes, belts, saddles, bridles, artillery harness, etc., would follow. ..............

......Forced to do more with less, one option available to the Ordnance Bureau was to simply replace leather with cloth. By mid-1863, this heavy cotton cloth, "domestic", was commonly used both East and West. Canvas duck or cloth stitched in three to four thicknesses, then painted with lamp black and finally varnished with one or more coats of linseed oil was used for waist belts, cartridge box belts, bridle reins, cap boxes, ground cloths and later, saddle coverings, skirts and saddle bags...............

...........However, clearly of far greater impact was the leather imported from England via Bermuda and the Bahamas. Shipping records, including those at the Ordnance Bureau’s main port of entry at Wilmington, show huge numbers of “cases”, “bundles”, “bales”, “boxes” and “rolls” of leather came through the Blockade throughout the war. Still more ..........the sheer number of listings in foreign import records, cargo manifests, voluminous War Department correspondence and post war accounts suggest......................

...........Nevertheless, in spite of all of these trials, the South never failed to provide enough leather to manufacture an adequate supply of military equipment and accoutrements. On the last day of 1864 Chief of Ordnance Josiah Gorgas wrote the Secretary of War that...........

......In summary, the leather the Confederacy produced clearly differed from that of the Federals. While most Federal accoutrements were made of hemlock or oak tanned leather and dyed to black (albeit with hemlock the color was sometimes only temporary), the majority of Confederate domestic tanned accoutrement leather was.................


Thank you!!


Ken R Knopp

[1stMaine]

Comrade,

No, Ken, thank you, and Mr. Jarnagin, for all your efforts. We are all the richer because of your work.

Respects,

[VaTrooper]

Coincidently I picked this issue up today at the Richmond show because the CS tongue I dug at Brandy Station is in there, Pg 35 bottom left corner. But it was a plus to see the leather article in there as well.

[Iron Scout]

Ken,

Many thanks for sharing tidbits out of this fine article. This is truly an amazing piece of historical documentation and I thank you and Dave for adding to the "record". I'm really suprised more folks didn't respond to your post though, but alas, I expect such things.

I'd also like to begin a seperate discussion about the CS use and importation of white buff too; both in bulk and in accoutrements. There seems to be a mentality that buff accoutrements are incorrect for a CS impression. Not saying they were everywhere, but documentation and extant items do exist. Thoughts?

Thanks again for your efforts in advancing our knowledge base in this area!

Regards,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[Jimmayo]

Ken,

I'm really suprised more folks didn't respond to your post though, but alas, I expect such things.



Neill
The lack of response may be due to folks not getting thier issue yet and being able to read the article. The US mail works in mysterious ways when it comes to getting the latest issue of the Trader. I have had friends less than a mile away get their magazine a week or two earlier than me and vice versa.

I am waiting by the mailbox for my issue but who knows how long that wait will be.

[1st Maine Trooper]

While I would love to read the article, I do not subscribe to the magazine that it is published in, so I will have to hold my comments until I can locate a copy for purchase locally. I am certain that it is full of usefull and pertinent information.

Dave Myrick

[Ken Knopp]

Neill,

Thank you for your kind words. Sorry I took so long to respond. I had to get some time to discuss this with David Jarnagin and to look through my records (I have the correspondence, vouchers, invoices etc. for about 70 or so Confederate leather providers taken from the CONFEDERATE PAPERS RELATING TO CITIZENS OR BUSINESS FIRMS, National Archives Collection.). Honestly, I did not take the time to look through them all (they are quite extensive.) however, of those I did and from my notes I find very little (virtually nothing) on the tanning, supply or importing of white buff leather in/to the Confederacy. One record from the account book of Capt. John Payne, comprising the imported Ordnance Stores (1863-1865) at the bureau’s main port of entry at Wilmington NC. noted no buff but does show some “buffalo” hides. These were likely not buff but rather real Buffalo possibly imported through Bermuda from Canada or the even the United States via Nova Scotia- a somewhat rare but occasional occurrence.
David and I discussed the use of white buff and we could think of no general use for it in the Confederacy other than possibly some “special” needs or orders. Black or natural buff may have been imported when available and could have had some uses in accoutrements such as was done in the Federal army. Likewise, we also noted that some little amounts of patent leather that came through the Blockade would have limited use excepting maybe kepi brims. Naturally, as we are dealing with limited surviving archival records we are speculating about all of this. Perhaps the McRae papers could shed some light on this subject.

For general knowledge, the following excerpt from David Jarnagin provides an overview of 19the century buff leather:
Buff this leather original name was "losh" or "lash. I have seen it spelled both ways. Buff-leather for belts and Military purposes was not from buffalo hides (This mistake is found in many different books even ones printed during the period.) Rather, buff leather was tanned from cow hides. These hide were often selected for buff finishing because of bacterial damage or skin defects since the grain surface would be removed during the tanning process.
The leather was subjected to a long lime and then sanded with a pumice stone or split by machine after they were invented. The oldest way is the sanding process, and was called buffing by tanners. So the question is: Was buff leather named for the sanding process or the color, since buff color is a yellowish gold color? I am not sure at this time.
From reading records we know that buff leather could only be tanned during the spring and fall. This is due to the liming process that requires mild weather. This kind of tanning was a difficult and time consuming process. White buff was used extensively by the military prior to the Civil War. After the Mexican war buff orders fell off dramatically. When the army wanted more in the 1850's tanners were generally not interested in overhauling production for limited contracts. This is one reason that the army switched to waxed leather in 1858. In a letter from G. Bomford Bt Col. of April 17, 1828 states that: As this kind of leather (buff) is unsaleable, except for the public service. This suggests that tanners were not willing to stock buff leather due to the lack of sales other than the military (Ordnance Dept. ).

Buff leather is found in three colors:
1. “Natural” or “Buff””: this is when no whiteners have been added to change the color from the natural color given by the oils during the tanning process. Nevertheless, I found that it was often stained a distinctive yellow in order to give a more pleasant color to the leather. This may be one reason that it was difficult to get buff all in the same, consistent color.
2. ““Whitened buff””: buff leather with whiteners added in order to give it a much lighter/whiter color. This color was not originally a pure white but tended to be in the range of a yellowish white or what we might call an antique white. However, it could be whitened to a bright white. Originally "whitened buff" was whitened with "Paris Whitening" this was a white chalk. [ I have add this term for clarity. The army preferred "whitened buff" as buff. For more information on these two terms check out page 261 in Paul D. Johnson's book on "Civil War Cartridge Boxes of the Union Infantryman"]
3. ““Blackened Buff””: This was buff leather dyed black on one side. This leather was also stained in order to give it a yellowish color as can be seen on the back of some artifacts.

Buff leather according to the Ordnance Dept. should be of a firm consistency, and should not be Spongy.

Anyway, I know this did not help you much but it may be of some use. Thank you for your kind assistance to us.

Ken R Knopp

[Jimmayo]

Just received my issue today. I haven't read the article yet but what caught my eye while paging through was the picture of CS veteran Henry Wood is his army overcoat. Could this be one of the English army cloth overcoats?

[Ken Knopp]

I must correct a mistake I have made.....After discussion with David Jarnagin we have concluded the “Buffalo hides” I noted in an earlier post as coming through the blockade to Wilmington was more likely simply imported British “buff” leather NOT Buffalo. As stated previously, then as now many people (including Ordnance officers of the period) erroneously believed buff leather came from Buffalos. There are a lot of reasons for this misunderstanding including the obvious. While I am still certain some real “Buffalo” hides came into the Confederacy, this particular entry in the Wilmington records was for buff. More importantly perhaps, the fact remains buff leather is NOT from Buffalos.
Most collectors and reenactors are familiar with seeing white, brown or black buff leather on original Federal accoutrements (and occasionally Confederate). These are easily recognized in any color by their “rough out” surface to the finish. If the “correct” leather, color or “look” of your equipment leather is important to you (or maybe your just curious) a bit more new information (and summarization) on leather tanning in general (and buff leather in particular) may be helpful here.

All fresh hides that were to be made into leather (any kind) came to the mid 19th century tanning house as either “raw”, “dried” or “dried & salted”. Most common were “dried and salted hides” which was done to preserve them in shipment/storage. Once at the tannery, it would often take 7 -10 days to re-soften the hide before the tanning process could even begin. During the vegetable tanning process (Oak or Hemlock bark tanned), the best hides were chosen to be made into high quality russet leather and lessor quality for staining or dyeing because defects and blemishes could be covered up. As for buff, since the grain surface would be removed during the tanning process, hides that were selected to be made into buff leather were often the worst ones having significant bacterial damage or skin defects. For a good general overview of the 19th century tannery operation check out our article CONFEDERATE LEATHER, BLACK, BROWN, HOW & WHERE (includes color photos!) in this month’s NORTH SOUTH TRADER MAGAZINE (Ph: 540-672-4845)
For tanning buff leather, cow hides were chosen and subjected to a long lime which could only be done in mild weather when the lime would act slowly to destroy the grain surface. It was then sanded with a pumice stone or split by leather splitting machine (the surface was simply cut off) after that machine was invented. The oldest way is the sanding process, and was called “buffing” by tanners. After tanning, the hide was “finished” (on the rough side) by the curriers with various oils and/or dye treatments. Buff leather was called a “hide” and not a “side” as other finished leather was referred to.
While often left “natural” in civilian use, for the military it was dyed either black or white and generally used for accoutrement belts and slings. As most of you know, white buff was used extensively by the military prior to the Civil War. After the Mexican War buff orders fell off dramatically. When the army wanted more in the 1850's tanners were generally not interested in overhauling their production for limited contracts. So, as I stated previously, this is one reason why in 1858 the army switched to “waxed” leather (leather finished smooth over the rough surface side) for its belts and slings. As a result, buff leather did not make up a large part of war time Federal accoutrement production.
NOTE: As for other Federal “war time” leather accoutrements (such as cartridge boxes and cap boxes) “bridle” leather was usually used and finished (dyed black and “sleeked” or “jerked”) on the grain NOT rough side. Most would have been oak or Hemlock bark tanned (Hemlock trees were dominant in large parts of the north at that time) then dyed to black. However, Hemlock tanning does not bond well with the iron mordants used to dye leather black so it would often turn brown (kind of a chocolate) -sometimes rather quickly. (For more information on this problem see our article: HEMLOCK LEATHER- THE FEDERAL ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT'S OTHER WAR. Journal of the Military Collector & Historian, The Company of Military Historians, Washington DC., Vol. 57, No. 1 -- Spring 2005). So, it would not have been unusual to see dark brown accoutrements on Federal soldiers during the war. A look wholly unknown among reenactors today.



Today, buff leather artifacts can found in three colors:
1. “Blackened Buff”: Used on pre war and a lot of war time Federal accoutrements. This was buff leather dyed black on one (the rough) side. This leather was also stained in order to give it a yellowish color as can be seen on the back of some artifacts. Black buff was dyed using iron mordants but with additional logwood used in the process. Unfortunately, when exposed to prolonged light the logwood oxidizes and the bond with the iron breaks down causing the black to turn brown just as often happens with hemlock tanned leather and noted above. Brown buff is nothing more than blackened buff that has faded to brown. Hence, you often see buff artifacts that are brown in color. However, this would not happen to “all” black dyed buff leather. A good tanner of the period would often use a special finish on the black buff to seal the dye which is why you often see buff leather artifacts that have NOT turned brown. Confused? Well, here is a bit more ....
Buff leather that was once whitened could not be dyed black without first removing the whiteners. This was an intricate process to restore the tannin so the iron mordants could bond with tannin and turn it black. Naturally, it could only be done by experienced tanners.

2. “Whitened buff”: The most commonly recognized buff leather and used extensively on pre war Federal accoutrements. This type buff leather had whiteners added in order to give it a much lighter/whiter color. This color was not originally a pure white but tended to be in the range of a yellowish white or what we might call an antique white. However, it could be whitened to a bright white. Originally "whitened buff" was whitened with "Paris Whitening" this was a white chalk. The army preferred the term "whitened buff". For more information on this check out page 261 in Paul D. Johnson's book, CIVIL WAR CARTRIDGE BOXES OF THE UNION INFANTRYMAN.

NOTE: In either black or white the Federal Ordnance Dept was particular about their buff leather. It had to come from the tanner in firm consistency and not spongy. After issue, white and black buff was often “touched up” from time to time by soldiers to keep its even color and appearance.

Whitened buff was also used extensively by the British military of the period (albeit sometimes “finished” differently) and some may have found their way into the Confederacy. For example, we know that some accoutrements that came into the South were made of white buff such as the 1845 (often called “angled”) cap pouch that was worn on the shoulder belt. It also remains possible though not clear that some “hides” of blackened buff may have come in to be made into infantry/cavalry accoutrement belts. However, due to its rough out surface (and as with Federal equipment), except maybe during emergency shortages it is doubtful buff was ever used in the making of Confederate cavalry or artillery horse equipments.

3. “Natural” or “Buff””: Often used in civilian usage such as for belts. This is when no whiteners or black dyes have been added to change the color from the natural color given by the oils during the tanning process. Nevertheless, it was often stained a distinctive yellow in order to give a more pleasant color to the leather.

Sorry to go on like this. More can or should be written on the significance of military leather tanning and production but, neither time nor space allow. Please note that leather tanning in that period was a dirty, difficult and time consuming process and, far more chemically complex than we can easily summarize here. In closing, I would like to humbly add that while I am a researcher and writer on “some” war time military equipment I am not the real expert on 19th century leather production. That would be David Jarnagin. In my opinion, he knows more about this subject than anyone that I am aware of today.

Is this information important? Probably not to most of you but we feel it provides some clarity and might be useful (or at least interesting) to those of you curious about the origins and, the “why” or “how” of 19th century military leather accoutrements. For more extensive information we urge you to read any of the articles/excerpts cited above.

Ken R Knopp
(And For David Jarnagin)

[paulcalloway]

Thanks for posting this Ken. I need to get my hands on a copy of North South Trader.

Dave had mentioned in an email recently that this was coming up so glad to see you all made it to publication and I'll look forward to reading it in full detail soon.

[Iron Scout]

Ken,

I for one applaude your and David's efforts on this very important subject. The three of us need to get together and discuss Huse's specific bulk leather purchases not only through I&C but also directly from the English curriers themselves. One of the documents contained in the McRae Collection is a 36 page running I&C invoice for the English steamer, the Justitia. Listed specifically are:

600 prs brown bridle middlings
100 prs stirrup middlings
222 brown harness backs
102 skirt backs
36dz collar basils
70 hides for collar wales
60 bag hides for valises
60 prs waxed pouch backs
30 waxed backs for ball bags
20 trunk hides
60 prs waxed middlings
20dz _ basils
60 x butts for seats
300 pouch middlings
300 belt middlings
250 waist belt middlings
500 knapsack sling middlings
150 middlings for frogs
150 middlings for gun slings
25 brown hides for pockets
20 black grain hides for pouch covers
80 black grain hides for pouch covers
200 middlings for ball bags
642lbs mixed cut leather for knapsack trimming

There is a lot that can be inferred just from this one invoice as it's so much more detailed in it's terms than Payne's notebook. I'll be interested to see some peoples theories on the use(s) of this leahter. But again, thanks for your great efforts in adding to the historical record.

Regards,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[fedhead]

A very excellent and interesting post gentlemen , i have many questions but one i am very interested in at the moment is the thickness of imported leather and domestic leather that was used for belts and slings primarily in the confederacy , any help would be greatly received

[Iron Scout]

Martyn,

A very broad question and not one easily answered. General concensus has it that domesticly used ie. CS leather was typically very thin, say 6 oz. for a cartridge box. While I've certainly seen examples of this, I've also seen Richmond swordbelts that were fully 9 plus ozs. Per the listing above, many of the assorted types of leather were probably listed per their weight and subesquent use in the English Ordnance system. Here's an example, I infer that the "waxed ball bag" leather was probably the weight used for English ball bags which would roughtly be around, say, 4 oz. Also take the "belt" leather which is an English term for a cartridge box sling. This could be 7-8 ozs from true examples I've viewed. Complicated, but see where I'm going?

Bottom line, weights ran the gambit in my opinion in both domestic and imported leather. Whew, hope this helps to some extent!

Neill Rose
PLHA

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Neil,

I know strength of leather has alot to do with which part of the hide it is cut from (shoulders and back being very strong, side less so...belly spongy and not very durable). In reading your recent post, it mentions the term "middling", and it appears to be used in the application of knapsack straps, frogs and "belting"...given the application of the leather, what part of the hide would we assume it to be from?

Further, have you seen the use of this term middling among other period leather definitions?

[Iron Scout]

Paul,

I have only seen the term 'middling' used in the Huse/McRae documents. I wondered for a while what cut of leather this actually was until recently. While searching some of the modern English saddlery/leather suppliers online, one had several pages from a c1900 saddlery catalog with all sorts of sporting saddle, bits, stirrups, etc. There was also an illustration of a whole hide (both halves) and all the various cuts ie. shoulder, butt and the other obvious ones. A middling was listed as a rectangular cut right behind the neck that extended half way down each of the front shoulders and then toward the center of the back. As I said, imagine a whole hide laid out with a rectangle placed behind the neck. This was obviously viewed as a superior cut and perfect when needing both length and tensile strength. Sorry, I know a long answer for a short question!

Regards,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[Iron Scout]

Folks,

This is a continuation of the CS vs English leather weight/thickness discussion. I've attached several images to give folks an idea of the variations.

1) White buff English import swordbelt-fully 9 oz leather
2) I&C waistbelt-rough out-7 oz leather
3) Simple example of I&C's use of top dyed white buff for the interior strapping on one of their knapsacks
4) Just a fun pic of the proper way to affix the closure tab on an I&C box utilizing a tunnel stitch

Enjoy,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[Richmond Depot]

Neil,

Flip your I & C box pic and show us the outer side of the closure flap. I think your viewers will appreciate the technique a little more.

Best,

[Iron Scout]

Scott,

This is the box front. Notice the tunnel stitch has not disturbed the exterior. I did check in my stack and got about every shot but that one! I'll post the back of the belt pic in a second as an example.

Neill Rose
PLHA

[Iron Scout]

Folks,

Here is a good example of the tunnel stitch affixing the rear of the keeper to the belt. Sorry to get so off topic! PS-note the underside of the belt is smooth grain and has been dyed also.

Neill Rose
PLHA

[Richmond Depot]

Until you have really studied the British stuff, it's hard to gain an appreciation of the over engineering efforts put into the gear.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Neill,

Yes a long answer for short question, but an excellent one at that. I may be travelling to Colombia in a few months for work, and would love to finally meet you. Last time I spent time in the area, I never made it to any historic sites or museums, and would love to do both.

Question: How much of the old SC Military Institute "The Arsenal" is left in the city? I'm assuming not much, but that hopefully a marker is placed in the area?

[Iron Scout]

Paul,

Very little left is correct although there are markers and at least one remaining structure. There's plently to see though such as the Robert Mills House, Hampton-Prestion Mansion, Chesnut Cottage, etc. We can also get into some items at the SCCRR&M along with the State Museum. Hey, might even let you look at some of the McRae Papers. Just let me know prior.

Cheers,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[Johnny Lloyd]

Gents-

Never forget the Governor's Mansion in Columbia, SC was the superintendant's (president's) house of the South Carolina Military Academy at the Arsenal. 'Course, you can't tour that or Gov. Sanford might take umbrage to it. ;)

From what I have read in the Annals of The Citadel (This, my beloved institution...) official knob knowledge, the pre-war Arsenal was the freshman year cadets' preparatory school until they transferred from Columbia to Charleston in their sophomore year to complete officer training.
Sherman put an end to that sadly.:(

Yet I digress...

Great thread... Johnny Lloyd

[onemoreb]

Does any one have any documentation on the shoulder strap "system" for Isaac and Campbell packs. During the Crimean War the British had some packs with straps that could be removed from the pack and would carry only a blanket and mess tins. I personally have only seen the "Y" configuration that buckles to the bottom of the pack. If anyone has information that this other variation was used during the "Late Unpleasantness" it would be greatly appreciated.

[LibertyHallVols]

Chris,

I believe that you are referring to the overcoat straps that go with the I&C pack. As explained to me by Nick ************, the straps can be used separate from the pack as a crude harness to carry a bedroll.

I have a set that Nick made to go with my I&C pack (both of these are top notch reproductions, by the way) and I have tried this on a couple of occasions. My results using this type of bedroll were mixed. I found that, unless the roll was sufficiently large in diameter, the straps had a tendency to slip off of the roll. My solution to this was to (1) make sure the roll was good and thick and (2) use either a strap or rope to tied the two straps together.

If I can, I'll get an image of this "rig" this weekend.

[James the Haggard Ranger]

Chris,

Check out this link for a little background on the Trotter Knapsack (http://www.95th-rifles.co.uk/knapsack.htm), and (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~second95/equipmentlist.htm). Please notice the load a British Soldier was expected to carry in Spain in 1812 most of it in his knapsack.
The Issac & Campbell Knapsack is a simplified Trotter Knapsack. The Trotter was modified over the years with the Issac & Campbell verson being the final evolution of this Knapsack.The orginial strap system for the Trotter is similar to the U.S. Mexican War soft knapsack (Kebbler). The Trotter Knapsack was introduced into the British Army in 1805 and was not replaced until the 1870's.

I hope this helps some.

Thanks,

James Wooten, Interpretive Ranger
Pickett's Mill Battlefield State Historic Site

[toptimlrd]

Chris,

I believe that you are referring to the overcoat straps that go with the I&C pack. As explained to me by Nick ************, the straps can be used separate from the pack as a crude harness to carry a bedroll.

I have a set that Nick made to go with my I&C pack (both of these are top notch reproductions, by the way) and I have tried this on a couple of occasions. My results using this type of bedroll were mixed. I found that, unless the roll was sufficiently large in diameter, the straps had a tendency to slip off of the roll. My solution to this was to (1) make sure the roll was good and thick and (2) use either a strap or rope to tied the two straps together.

If I can, I'll get an image of this "rig" this weekend.

John,

One way to get the necesary girth is to simply fold the blanket one additional time before rolling, it makes for a very short roll but does allow the overcoat straps to cinch down securely.

[onemoreb]

Thank You to all your responses. I really appreciate all the help.
John, if you get the image I would be grateful.

[tiger_rifles]

Hello All, A few years back I remember reading a post ref. dateing Isaac & Campbell gear by its markings. I can not find this thread now.
I have picked up a I&C cap pouch, same style as the 1845 mdl, but it mounts to a waist belt by 2 leather straps w/buckles, is not slanted 45%, and is over all a little bigger. Front is stamped; "S.ISAAC" over "CAMPBELL" over "& Co." over smaller letters "EN" Can not read the rest. Back is stamped "WINTERS" over "IRO" maybe "M" can not read the rest, over "AL" can not read the rest.
I plan to reproduce one and test it, seems like it would work very well.
But first want to be sure it is from the CW time frame.
Can anyone help me ID it? Any guesses as to what the rest of the stamping is?
Also looking for a company that could reproduce these leather stamps. The lettering is very odd and not like the classic I&C "London" block letters we have all seen.

Many thanks, Paul Bennett
Tiger_Rifles

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Paul,

1. It would help considerably to have a few pics.

2. My understanding is that the S. Isaac and Campbell Co. was only ACW era; that the company was started as a front to move British goods to the South.

Paul

[Toney]

Paul,

If the stamp is Winter Iron Works AL, it is dated to 1960’s when a company in England made up marks and dropped them on the US collecting market. There was an article in the North/South Trader about 15 or 20 years ago that listed all of the fake marks. I have seen an I & C mark on a musket sling along with the Winter stamp and the I & C stamp had a double line border in a rectangular shape. This stamp is showing up on the 1880’s US musket sling copies that are being sold as Enfield slings.

There could be a third stamp on the sling as well and it is CS inspected, Montgomery and this is the third and finial stamp used by the English firm. I did not know of any cap pouches with these marks and I would be interested in knowing if it is the stamp I described.

Joe Toney

[Richmond Depot]

Paul and Paul,

Back in the 1960's a number of items came over from England bearing the markings of I & C. They were identified as being wartime manufactured surplus but were in reality fakes.

I too, read an article on this somewhere, or perhaps it was during a conversation with the SR. curator of the MOC that I learned this.

Best,

[Toney]

Scott,

I disagree with you that they were war time manufacture, since several of the slings I have viewed had the funny steel rivets. I do not remember any of the war time examples having rivets of any kind.

I am not up on what if anything I & C did after the war but they may have continued on making items for British regiments and this may be where they came from but I seriously doubt they are from the American Civil War period. I may get proved wrong here.

By the way there is one of the slings I am talking about in the fakes and mistakes collection in the AHC. This sling has all three marks in question.

Joe Toney

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Back in the 1960's a number of items came over from England bearing the markings of I & C. They were identified as being wartime manufactured surplus but were in reality fakes.



Joe,

I believe if you read Scott's statement, he clarified it by stating these were in reality "fakes".

I also thought the S. Isaac & Campbell company was a marketing front, they themselves buying "out-dated British surplus". As far as I know they were not producing goods for the British Army.

Paul B.

[Toney]

Scott,

I read it a hurry and I reread it this morning and it is an oops. Sorry.

Thanks Paul.

Joe

[tiger_rifles]

Thanks to all for the information Gentlemen. This site is truely more informed than any Google or internet site I have found in the last 6 months of Searching!
I tried to take some pictures of the stampings but my picture box would not bring them out. Yes this pouch has a double line box around the "I&C" stamp with the corners clipped. It also has marks on the right of the stamping, from the edge of the stamp itself. I take this to mean they hammered this in after it was made and did not press it in as it should be. The back stamp does appear to be the "Winters" stamp you spoke of. I guess the real deal breaker is the 4 metal rivets that hold the back/belt straps on,(thank you for that detail describing the faked rifle sling!).
I did a liitle more research last night and found that pouches very much like this one, in white buff and brown, were used as pistol cart. pouches for British Officers from about 1880 to The Great War.
So this is a fake! I guess it is back to making Brunswick Ball Pouches!
Many Thanks! To those that are in the know.
Paul Bennett
Tiger_Rifles

[Thomas Alleman]

I was wondering when these were shipped and how many and where shipped, early in the war? I know that Shiloh has one so where they common early war?

Thomas Alleman

[Dan Wambaugh]

Hey Tom,

I'm not sure if you've checked through already but the answer to your question may be in the McRae papers featured on this website:

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=91

There is all sorts of information coming out of these documents about imported goods from England that we previously did not know, and a little searching may find the very answer you're looking for.


Best,

[Garrett Silliman]

Tom,

Additionally, here's a link to an older thread where this topic was discussed.
http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11509&highlight=Isaac+Campbell

Good luck, Garrett

[DougCooper]

Isaac and Campbell equipment was coming over by late 61, as per the McCrae papers cited in this thread. Knapsack hardware has been dug in the CS positions during the May 1862 campaign around Corinth. See refs here on the NSA website: http://www.nsalliance.org/uniforms/csuniforms.htm

[Slouch]

what I find interesting is that leather knapsack pieces were being shipped. These parts were listed in a thread on this forum about leather weights by a member citing the McRae papers. Makes one wonder if English style knapsacks were being constructed here from imported materials.

[1stMo Drummer]

You may also want to try contacting Robert Serio of Missouri Boot and Shoe as i have recently been talking to him about his reproducing one for me and he seems to have an amount of info on the subject...

[Erik]

I have seen painted linen covers and leather covers for canteens. They are fitted by their strap to the top oif the knapsack, vertically when carrying rations in them and horizontally when not.
The straps refer to all of the staps to convey or attach the blanklet or overcoat to the knapsack.
Erik Simundson

[jthofner]

Can anyone help on the issue on English Acouterments sent over and used by Southern Soldiers. I know of the black colored leathers used by Southern Troops with the enfield box, snake belt, etc., but was wondering if the white/buff Acouterments used by British Regular troops were also acquired by Southern Troops and used?

[DBURT]

Sir,
Yes, white buff accoutrements certainly were imported into the Confederacy.
I have just recently examined a white buff cap pocket in the MOC, along with a white buff swordbelt with snake " hook" catch.
There is also a white buff "expense pouch" (ball bag) in the Atlanta history center.
There are numerous invoices that mention "buff" accoutrements, no doubt some of these were white buff

Dave Burt, ACWS, England

[Iron Scout]

Folks,

If you'll search for the answers on other posts, we'll clearly see buff accoutrements were coming into the South at various times. While they were probably the least imported vs black bridle, there are certainly extant examples available for viewing in certain collections. Note the attached images courtesy of the MOC. What we call a cap pouch the English call a "cap pocket". Yes, I do have permission to share FYI.

The buff closure straps are off the Overton pack in their collection.

Dave, the swordbelt you viewed (also in EOG) is not an I&C pattern but rather something VERY odd and warranting of it's own thread.

Cheers,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[Iron Scout]

Folks,

See attached...
PS-Thanks to the Mods for merging all these various English threads; excellent information!

Neill Rose
PLHA

[DBURT]

Neill,
Just the man...Do you have the history of the cap pocket in your pic?
I believe it was misidentified as a coin purse when it was found?
I managed to lose my notes on this item when I viewed it, but I believe also that it belonged to a soldier called Davis?
Hope you can help..

Dave Burt, ACWS, UK.

[Iron Scout]

Dave,

Yes, I think it was a Davis from the 37th NCT. The paperwork also noted "1864". Robert Hancock has a nice spec sheet on the original for those interested. The finials on these pockets are very unique and nothing at all like their American counterparts.

Cheers,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[Erik]

English cartridges boxes had tins to hold 50 rds. and a pouch on the facve of the box to khold aportion of the caps issued for those rounds. The balance of the 60 rds required were in an expense pouch worn on the right front. Caps were carried in a pouch on the cartridge pouch sling.
Belts and slings were white buff leather for Guards and Infantry of the line and blackened buff leather for Rifle Regiments.
Belts were closed by the universal locket plate with a crown in the centre, excepting Rifle regiments that retained the snake hook still used today.
Snake hooks were purportedly sold overseas to prevent any interest being assumed by HM government.
The blackened buff leather was quick to fade to a brown appearance without care. I have a swatch from an original belt which can provide a sample of the color and texture.
I shall try to produce a sample photo for examination.
The cap pouch used on the belt (one can hardly call it a box) is exactly similar to the pouch cap container or a pouch belt cap pouch without the mounting. These pouches were issued to the Canadian Militia and The Indian Army during this period.
I will include pictures of the original Indian Army pouch and the type worn by the Canadian Militia in a further post.
These pouches featured bridle leather, sheepskin leather linigs and a single strap to hold them to the belt.

References:
Equipment For the Army, 1865. Edited by John Walter.
Photocopies of the original above.
Original photos of the Queen's Own Rifles 1856 - 1866.
Photros of original equipment.

Erik Simundson
4th Michihgan

[tater]

My reasearch (albiet limited) points that a Confederate issued an Enfield musket, rifle, or musketoon, was issued an Enfield cartridge box, cap box, and belt, as they (mostly) came in the same boxes that the rifles came in. The Union army leaned in the direction of regulation cartridge boxes and cap boxes, but some soldiers retained the English items.

[coastaltrash]

Tyler,
I wouldn't bet the farm on that. While Enfield boxes certainly saw a good amount of use during the ACW they did not total the number of British made weapons being used by both sides.

[jacobite8749]

Not sure I'd bet on that either. I am sure Neill will say, muskets came in boxes, but not to my knowledge the same ones. Accoutraments, were ordered seperatley, invoices abound for them, and delivered seperatley.

[ohpkirk]

All,
I am searching for any known photographs, sketches, etc. of the A. G. Ross contractor stamp on inside of the outer flap on the p1859 cartridge boxes that were being imported during the war. I have photographs of one but the leather is in such a poor state that little can be determined other than 'A.G.'. On the knapsacks that this firm manufactured, the stamp was a circle with 'A.G. Ross' and business info (see attachment) If you have a photo or any other info on the cartridge box stamp I would be very grateful.

Thanks,
Cody Mobley

[Tim Prince]

Cody,

I know that David Jarnagin has at least one "A ROSS" box in his collection. I also know a collector/researcher who owns an ID'd "A ROSS" box. I will contact him and see if he is willing to share marking photos. Give me a few days to see what I can turn up for you.

[Dwbailey]

Cody & Tim

There is a Ross marked trotter pattern knapsack in the Atlanta History collection. I believe there is a mark cartridge box as well.

Doug Bailey

[ohpkirk]

Thanks, Tim!

[DBURT]

Cody
The Sharpsburg Arsenal had a Ross & Co pouch for sale a while back.
It is clearly marked "A Ross & Co C&M 1861" it is thought that the C&M mark stands for "Certificate & Medal" with the date of the trade exhibition at which they were awarded.

Dave Burt, ACWS, England.

[Tim Prince]

Cody,

A couple of e-mails and some photos are on the way. I'm waiting for a better image of the actual mark. There are some fine images of the box itself. Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

[ohpkirk]

Tim,
I appreciate all that you've done!

[jgr1974]

How bout pics for all!!! Mr. Mobly, is the pic you posted of the ink stamp on a knapsack???

The Mad MIck!!!

[ohpkirk]

Yes, sir. That is the inner flap of the A. Ross contract British knapsack......a wholly underrepresented knapsack.


Not all British packs were of the S. Isaac's Campbell contract.

[jgr1974]

My sentiments exactly!!!! Actually was called the "Trotter pattern" and was designed around the 1812 war period. Somewhere in my various notes, I have a pic of a knapsack tat claims to have the ross stamp on the shoulder strap. I will see what I have done with it!

The Mad MIck!!!

[Bob Steele]

I have in my collection a I&C knapsack hook which was dug at Pickett's Mill, so we can say that some were definitely issued and used by the AOT in the Atlanta Campaign. Would like to find more information on C.S. usage of the knapsack and other English accourterments.

Bob Steele
Recurit

[jacobite8749]

"2. My understanding is that the S. Isaac and Campbell Co. was only ACW era; that the company was started as a front to move British goods to the South".

Samuel Isaacs by 1845 is listed as a military tailor and outfitter, and army contractor. By 1848 he had registered premises in London, at 71 High Steet, Chatham. Isaac, Campbell & Co also had an address in London, 71 Jermyn Street, which was the same address registered to Samuel Isaac.

Saul Isaac was Samuel's brother and later partner. Both went bankrupt in 1869, but were later discharged and went on to other things.

Until May 1858, Isaac, Campbell & Co. had been contractors for the British army, when they were dismissed following misappropriations. It was during this period they had established their first shoe-making premises in Northampton, later run by Turner Bros. One saving feature and fortunate for the Isaac, Campbell & Co. happened that year, and that was the raising of the Rifle Volunteers, which fell outside the War Dept. authority, Rifle Volunteers not being on the military establishment. Isaac, Campbell & Co. continued to manufacture, purchase and supply military items to this force. These type of goods, Volunteer equipments, made up the mainstay of items sold to Huse in addition to any military surplus.

[Iron Scout]

Folks,

Well, as usual, John sums up the whole history of the business very nicely. Generally speaking English accoutrements may very well be the most versatile equipment(s) for our CS impressions. The McRae Papers speak very loudly that goods were being shipped as early as October/Nov 1861 and were certainly in the field by the Seven Days battles. Not only that, shipments of bulk leather and hardware (buckles, rings, finials, knapsack hardware, etc.) really picked later in 1862 as the arsenal system began to hit its stride.

Neill Rose
PLHA

[Iron Scout]

Folks,

I'd love to see any images possible. While Huse purchased mainly from I&C early in the conflict, other agents were contracting directly with many of their sub- suppliers like Ross, Hebbert & Co, Middlemae, etc.

I wouldn't be suprised a bit if the Overton pack at the MOC was an A. Ross product.

Neill Rose
PLHA

[Moonshine]

Are these Ross or Trotter knapsacks the same dimensions and style as the typical S. Issac and Campbell? Any differences noted or seen?

BTW, no relation to the Ross manufacturer!!!

[Ken Knopp]

Dave,

Although I think I may have posted some of this info on Ross &Co. before (maybe before the crash?) here is some information on A. Ross & Co. from my book, MADE IN THE C.S.A., SADDLE MAKERS OF THE CONFEDERACY. This information came from various sources including a “British saddle historian” friend of mine in England. He tells me he owns other British military pieces made by Ross & Co. although much of it from the late 19th century and WWI.


ROSS, A. & CO. Jerimine St., London, England and Bermonday, England
A Canadian firm based in London. Ross manufactured 1856 Universal Pattern saddles and other leather (infantry) equipment under contract to the British Army. In August and September 1861, A. Ross & Co. supplied leather, leather equipment and medicines (Quinine) to the Confederate Ordnance Department through purchases made by its agents, Major Caleb Huse and Major Edward Anderson. Some L10,000 of their goods were purchased in August and September for shipments aboard the "Fingal" and invoiced through financiers, S. Isaac, Campbell & Co. It appears likely the firm provided other equipment to the Confederacy throughout the war. Ross & Co continued to make equipment for the British army too. At some unclear point in the later 19th century, Ross became “Hepburn Gale and Ross” and employed a stamp “HGR” on much of its equipment. Ross & Co. remained in business manufacturing saddlery stirrups and spurs well into the 20th century.

The following firm (“Middlemore”) was mentioned in an earlier post by Neill Rose so I thought I might provide a bit if information on that firm (also from my book). I used to own an 1856 British UP pattern saddle made in 1863 by and marked “Middlemore & Co”. Although to the best of my knowledge only about a dozen or so of these rare 1856 UP’s have survived today I know of at least one other made by Middlemore.

MIDDLEMORE Birmingham, England
Highly respected English saddle manufacturer with contracts in 1863 (possibly earlier) to the British Army for the 1856 Universal Pattern saddle. It is not clear if the firm provided any of these saddles to the South through financiers Saul, Isaac Campbell & Co. but they were certainly a war time contractor. Although this saddle pattern was not as favorably received by Confederate officers as the earlier British Hussar’s (1850's Crimean War era) pattern, many were imported.
The Middlemore UP saddle of 1863 was considered among the better made of this pattern by contemporary British saddle makers and historians. By the early 20th century the firm had merged with another company now known as Middlemore & Lamplugh, Ltd., but was still making saddlery for the British army.

I hope this helps.


Ken R Knopp

[DBURT]

Ken,
Many thanks, just one question, is that Jerimine St, or Jermyn St ? If its Jermyn St, that is the same street S Isaac Campbell & Co were located on.

Dave Burt, ACWS, UK.

[Vuhginyuh]

I'll search portions of the Fingal manifest. She could be a good resource for this thread. She made landfall here at least once with tons of guns, gear and uniforms.

[Iron Scout]

Garrison,

I've viewed the I&C invoices for the Fingal per the McRae Papers. There's a ton of individual purchases by Huse to say the least. No direct A. Ross products mentioned although some of their products could have been in the orders. What source do you have for the Fingal's inventory on this side of the pond?

Neill Rose
PLHA

[Ken Knopp]

Gentlemen,

I admit that I do not know much about infantry accoutrements but I was asked via private message from one of the people posting here to provide some information relative to the discussion. I did so. Since David Jarnagin’s name came up I asked him to take a look at the thread too. As a result, David wanted to also submit some information and so asked me to do so for him. The following is submitted by David Jarnagin via myself, Ken R Knopp. It is intended to share information relative to the above discussion.

Ross Totter knapsack (By David Janagin)
I have viewed the A. Ross trotter knapsack in the Atlanta History Center, and here is a brief overview:
First, let me say that I own an original I & C Knapsack. It is made from waxed leather except for the leather corners which are bridle (smooth out or grain side) vegetable tanned leather
As far as size the Ross knapsack at the AHC is exactly the same size as my original I & C knapsack however, the Ross knapsack is quite a bit different than my I & C in several key areas. First, are the leather corners that are not vegetable tanned leather but are instead made from buff leather that has been heavily Japanned to the point that it looks like bridle leather. The exterior straps are all buff blackened with the exception of the two straps that hold down the flap and those are “waxed” vegetable tanned leather (leather finish on the flesh or rough side of the leather). The interior straps are of whitened buff leather (these were never blackened). The ““Y”” straps are made of waxed vegetable tanned leather with “A. Ross & Co.” over “C & M 1861" stamped into bottom of the buckle strap.
I have also viewed the original knapsack at Shiloh NMP and it is done the same way as the Ross one at the Atlanta History Center in the use of leather, but there is no makers mark found. Could these two be surplus knapsacks that have been re-worked using leather of various finishes? It does make me wonder since corresponding straps are of totally different leather finishes. There was no mark of Crown ownership on either of these two knapsacks, meaning no broad arrow......

(MODERATORS: I ask that you please look at and then keep these links up. They DO NOT go to the Jarnigan Co. retail web site. They are links that go strictly to photographs and are not meant to circumvent forum rules but offered here for relative and valid educational purposes only! Ken R Knopp)

http://www.jarnaginco.com/david/artwork/english%20knapsack72.jpg
http://www.jarnaginco.com/david/artwork/english%20knapsack721.jpg

....The pictures above are not the Ross knapsack from the AHC nor the one at Shiloh, but an entirely different one from Jefferson Barracks, Mo.; the types of leather used and where they are used is as seen on the AHC and the Shiloh knapsacks. It is interesting to note that the owner added two straps somewhere along the way for a blanket roll. I do not know for sure if these are period but I really do not think they are. This knapsack was on display at Jefferson barracks some 4 or 5 years ago when I took the photos. I hope this is of value to the discussion.

David Jarnagin
(Ken R Knopp)

[DBURT]

David and Ken
Thank you very much for providing wonderful information and photographs to this discussion.
It was I that got in touch with both Ken And David, for I knew from previous discussions with them,they had valuable information they could share on A Ross & Co.
I have a little more information to share on Ross & Co, courtesy of John Hopper.
The firm ended up as Hepburn Gale & Ross by 1901, and that company merged with Samuel Barrow & Sons to form Barrow Hepburn & Gale in 1920.
This firm operated out of Grange Mill Tannery in Bermondsey, London.

In May 1940, at the height of the Luftwaffe blitz on London the factory was destroyed, but the firm survived, and was still going in the 1970's

Dave Burt, ACWS, England.

[wade03]

Does anyone know if there is any pictures or descriptions of english improted haversacks around? I'm looking to buy one from trans mississippi depot, but have never seen an original, and would like more hard evidence before I go out and buy one.

[Secesh]

I do not have the image handy, but I have seen pics of an original, and I have seen Don Smith's / Trans-Miss Depot, and Don's is a dead ringer for the original. Thanks.

[oldsecesh]

Wade,

I have the one made by Don Smith of Trans Mississippi Depot, and its a beauty! I spoke with him prior to ordering it. He models his after a surviving example belonging to a South Carolina soldier. If I remember correctly, there are three existing examples, one being in a private collection. Your best bet is to call Don and inquire, as he has all the supporting information. Oddly, two of the originals have the leather strap closures facing upward, like the one Don makes, and one has the leather straps facing down. Boyd Miles makes the latter version.

[Eric Wisbith]

Recently got an Issacs and Campbell pack and mess tin. What did the cover and or attachments to strap it to the pack look like? Does anyone make them?

[Pvt Peck]

Nick ************ has them listed on his site last I looked.

Edward Parrott
"humbug"

[lawson]

Go to Robert Serio of "Missouri Boot & Shoe". He'll get ya fixed up for darn cheap.

[DBURT]

Eric
This is a pic of an original at GNMP, British mess tin covers of the 1850/60's were supposed to be made from black painted canvas with black leather straps ( as from 1838)
Most though were made of oilskin, made with the application of japan to canvas or linen.

Dave Burt, ACWS, England.7386

[Johnny Lloyd]

All-

Would anyone know reference material on the difference/evolution of the British Enfield bayonet frog and scabbard (with emphasis to those possibly imported to the Confederacy and used abroad) from about 1840s to the 1900s? Anyone have detailed pictures of originals used in the American Civil War?

Thanks- Johnny

[Roger Hansen]

Re: I & C Knapsack

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have in my collection a I&C knapsack hook which was dug at Pickett's Mill, so we can say that some were definitely issued and used by the AOT in the Atlanta Campaign. Would like to find more information on C.S. usage of the knapsack and other English accourterments.

Bob Steele
Recurit


I have seen I&C dug knapsack hooks from Morton, Mississippi along with lots of script I buttons with Manchester backmarks. Camp was occupied by Johnston's army as it retired from Jackson in the summer of '63 after Vicksburg fell. At this location these items were attributed to east coast units (from South Carolina) that were sent west to reinforce Johnston...units that had ready access to blockade goods.

Roger Hansen

[jacobite8749]

Several months ago I purchased a box of mess tin straps, some stamped AR and some HGR and I presume some are SA War and some WWI. Again some are for cavalry mess tins and some the old style (similar to CW) infantry mess tins.

Below is a view of The Grange Tannery in about 1870 or so.

http://s31.photobucket.com/albums/c359/johnfhopper/tannery-00297-350.jpg

Below is a view of the bits the Germans left, at least until the 1980's. This can be seen up in the top right corner of the 1870's photo.

http://s31.photobucket.com/albums/c359/johnfhopper/412696552_ce2aaa656c.jpg

[LWhite64]

I know of quite a few hooks and eyes that have been found around Dalton and Resaca, including an iron set.

Lee

[ContinentalMorganGuard]

I've read this thread multiple times and always find something new, but I have some unanswred questions.
1. Which expense bag was more common in Civil War use the 1855 or the 1861? Also, I saw both at a sutler recently and the 1855 model was labeled enfield ball bag, and the 1861 was labeled whitoworth ball bag. I asked for clariifcation but didn't get much other then the usual well our maker is an expert, and makes these of originals. I've been on a search for the answer and di discover the 1855 which was quiet similar to the "enfield" bag on http://hicketypip.tripod.com/equiphoto/expense.htm
2. Also most replicas and orginial 1861 expense pounes I've seen are white buff, but did they also come is black?
3. The cap pocket was there more then one style? The orginals I've seen the flap only comes part way down, but some reperductions I've seen the flap covers the entire pocket.
4. I've read hwere the expense pouch was used as a cap box, but was it common to have both the cartrige box and expense pouch in the ACW?
5. Last question does anyone have specs for the British bayonet frog that does not have the buckle, as well as the cap pocket?

Thank you in advance!

[DBURT]

Robert,
Look at the Old South antiques website, on there you will find an original P 1861 Ball Bag for sale.
It has the "S Isaac Campbell & Co" cartouche, and is made of black leather.
British Army regs had the buff version of this bag for line,Guards, and Highland units, the black version was for Rifle units only.
The Old antiques site also has a "Cap Pocket" for sale, also made in black leather.

This ball bag appears to have been the one mostly used by Confederate troops, it was introduced into British Army use on 10th Sept 1861, and there are lots of this type of ball bag in various museums.

Dave Burt, ACWS, England.

[Marc29thGA]

4. I've read hwere the expense pouch was used as a cap box, but was it common to have both the cartrige box and expense pouch in the ACW?

That is a question I've been curious about - how common was it for the Confederacy to issue the Expense Pouch with the cartridge box and cap pouch & were they actually used as the British system intended?

Y.O.S,

[1stMaine]

Marc,

FWIW, the images of the Massachusetts troops issued with full sets of English accoutrements show them with the ball bag/expense pouch issued in lieu of a cap box. In images showing the issue of partial sets, or rather, mixed American & English pattern accoutrements, they either have an expense pouch or a cap box, but not both. None of then are shown wearing the cap box designed for the cartridge box strap, either.

How that plays into the CS usage, I cannot say, but my own personal opinion would argue against issuing both to a soldier, or for using the expense pouch in lieu of a cartridge box. None of the American manuals taught the system the English used so both soldiers and their instructors would be familiar with how those accoutrements (English pattern) were designed to function together. I simply see the ball bag.expense pouch being issued as a cap box when needs be.

respects,

[ContinentalMorganGuard]

tim,
On page 10 of this thread there are two pictures of Confederates wearing British gear and the picture on the right appears to me to be wearing the expense pouch and the cap pocket on his cross strap. Look closely under his "left" arm.

Dave,
What documentation says that CS troops recieved the black bags vs. the white?

Thanks!

[ContinentalMorganGuard]

I looked at the Old south antiques site, quite interesting. The ball bag/expense pouch they hvae is labeled as Whitworth or Kerr Bag. What makes it whitworth vs. the regular issue enfield bags? Seems the more I learn the more confused I get about what is what.

Thnaks!

[Iron Scout]

Wow,

We're really complicating things here. First, if we're talking about CS issue items, we need to throw the 'expense pouch' term out the window. Caleb Huse calls them ball bags and later 'cap pockets' for the sling mounted pouchs. Black waxed flesh is by far the most prevelent leather remaining for these articles although there are at least three ID'd white buff waistbelts and one white buff cap pocket. I&C were producing their own items along with purchasing from other outfitters so while I'm sure the pattern was the same, the leather used differed. Anyway, I suggest folks go back to the McRae folder and do some looking around too as there's a lot of good information there.

Neill Rose
PLHA

[ContinentalMorganGuard]

Thanks that helps some, so if I purchase aball bag I could go either way but PEC would have been black.
But, the question still stands were the ball bags used as they British intended in CS service or were they just glorified cap pouches?

[Iron Scout]

Robert,

Simple answer is I'm sure the soldier used them how he wished like soldiers do. What's interesting though is it appears the importation of ball bags really dropped off in 1862 while purchases of cap pockets increased. Just FYI.

Neill Rose
PLHA