Cotton or Linen thread?

[John Grimes]

The topstitching on a logwood dyed jeancloth RDII, which one is it? It seems that in the world of 19th Century uniforms, there are very few absolutes, but if I had a choice......
I have searched archives and found nothing on this. Thanks ahead of time for your assistance.

[Clark Badgett]

Remember the one thing the South had plenty of was....Cotton.

[va-yank]

But they like' growed a passel of flax down yonder too...

Someone please correct me (and I am sure you will) as to how the following logic is faulty.

A tailor/sutler opined to me that the exterior seams and topstitching of a garment is a good candidate for hard-wearing thread like linen, and a locking stitch if machine sewn (back stitch if hand sewn). Facings, linings and other interior portions of the garment are better candidates for cotton thread, and a machine chain stitch or hand sewing with a whip stitch.

Release the hounds.

[Clark Badgett]

Fred,
While I can't confirm or deny what you described, there is a bit of logic to it. The original CS uniforms I've looked at seemed to be sewn with what looked to me like cotton, but I wasn't able to have it determined scietifically. There are probably many different uniforms sewn with various threads, and even silk can probably be encountered.

[wildflower]

Gentlemen,

I cannot comment on the authenticity of linen thread for this period of clothing, much less on uniforms! However, as a 18th c. reenactor, I have sewn extensively with linen thread--and I can assure you that it is much less durable than cotton! I think this is principally a modern problem, as manufacturers chop the bast fibers short (uncut, they tangle up modern spinning equipment). I have a spool of antique (very heavily prewaxed) linen thread--and it is nothing like the linen thread that sutlers sell nowdays (looks like heavy weight quilting thread).

If you do decide to sew with linen thread, may I suggest using double ply thread (the plies give strength--I get mine from Burnley & Trowbridge) and waxing it heavily (to help prevent fraying). Regardless, at a certain point, it will fray and break off in your needle, so replace it and keep sewing (you may as well just to cut off in short lengths). Whatever you do, linen thread is only good for handsewing--don't even consider running it through a sewing machine, it will just break and make a big mess to clean up!

Once sewn, linen thread seems adequately durable--though I don't think the mechanics of a stitch put a whole lot of stress on the actual thread. I would not suggest using linen for sewing on buttons--unless you like losing buttons! OTOH, linen makes for wonderful buttonholes on small clothes--the density and weight provides great coverage & binding qualities that you just can't get from cotton (and from every garment I've seen, Victorians were fairly obsessional in sewing neat buttonholes). I don't know if linen was used for buttonholes on outerwear at this time--in the earlier 19th c, at least, silk (either buttonhole twist or embroidery fiber work) was typically used on both woolens and silks. It may seem like a luxury for commonman's clothes--but very little was used.

If you find that you don't like linen thread, you may get the effect you want a heavier weight of cotton thread, such as topstitch weight or quilter's thread (which is pre-waxed, to boot). Since it's impossible to get the quality of linen thread they used, I would think this might be an acceptable substitute. You'd have to look at original garments alongside modern stitching samples, but the result with cotton thread may closer resemble the originals, even though the fibers are different.

I'm still sticking with linen for buttonholes, though!

YMOS,

Mary Dotson

[va-yank]

Mary, Great comments and advice.

Yes, strong linen thread is made by hand by someone who knows what they are doing, such as someone dedicated to an 18th Cent spinner and weaver impression. My take on the linen vs cotton question was in part influenced by a generous supply given me by just such a person. Having almost used it all up, your advice is very timely.

As you say, the modern linen stuff, such as that sold at So-Fro Fabrics, is way too fragile. The stuff that FHW sells is much better, longer fibers, a little uneven in spots and lumpy, but much stronger. Although it does bunch up and unravel occasionally at the needle. Its a great deal in bulk (plug).

Question: Does the cotton boll have shorter fibers than the flax plant? Therein would seem to be the making of which is optimally stronger.

[Yellowhammer]

Fred,

Regarding your comment about Southern linen production, Les Jensen's "A SURVEY OF CONFEDERATE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT QUARTERMASTER ISSUE JACKETS," contains the following quote in the section on Peter Tait contract jackets:

"It is significant that in 1860 there were only four linen factories in this country, all of them in the north."

This quote, derived from the census of 1860 shows that any spinning or weaving facilities in the South were working primarly with cotton and wool. As Clark said, they did indeed have a lot of cotton and all the CS QM jackets I've seen (including a linen-lined Tait jacket) were all sewn throughout with cotton thread.

[wildflower]

John,

In my understanding, linen was never made on a huge scale in the US. However, at the time of the American War for Independence, the British embargoed the supply of Linen from Ireland. Because a war effort involved outfitting an army with undergarments (ie, shirts), this blockade made things difficult. Efforts at domestic production were attempted, but I've read local accounts complaining about the poor quality of domestic linen, how it was slubby and only suitable for slaves...Probably something like the modern linen you can find for sale these days!

So, I take exception with the author who made that comment. I don't agree that a lack of domestic manufacture was an indication of unavailability--it probably was imported, just as it always was. By comparison, rum wasn't ever made significantly in the US, but there was plenty of it, nevertheless!

Nevertheless, linen was the primary fabric for household goods, right up until the early 20th century. That's easily documentable. There are also many extant linen shirts (and cotton shirts with linen bosum pieces) from this period. I have also read several Victorian household manuals that indicate that "cambric" was preferred for small clothes. They associated it with healthful qualities and purity.

Cambric was a very fine linen (not cotton) cloth--but not the nubby course linen sold these days. My copy of Florence Montgomery is buried somewhere downstairs while I paint new bookshelves--or I'd run and try to quote the great goddess herself! Later, in the 20th century, when modern manufacturing (chopping the fibers) made true cambric production impossible, "cotton cambric" emerged. To apply the modern definition of cambric as cotton is anachronistic.

But bear in mind, antique cambric is an entirely different breed from modern linen. I have a stash of some very precious stuff here that I'm fingering. It doesn't wrinkle easily, but it presses nicely. It boils without shrinking. It has no coarse lumps or nubbs. It is calendered into a hard, lusterous surface that sustains through washing. As Barbara Streisand would say "butta, pure butta."

Now to you, Fred,

I'd love to find a source for good homespun linen thread. You are right--the reason they chop down the linen fibers is because they are longer--but I wouldn't logically conclude that length of fiber is a full indication of superior strength (fibers could break). I understand though, that one reason why few spinners working with linen is because it is tougher on the hands than other fibers--but again, I'm not sure that is indication of superior strength, either.

I'm not familiar with the suppliers you mention. Is So-fro fabrics a real merchant or a generic aspersion for shlocky sutlers? Who is FWH?


YHOS,

Mary Dotson

[Bill Cross]

There are many good points in this thread (pardon the pun), but the problem in picking a thread is finding your comfort level for authenticity. Linen threads available are often crude and poorly made (note the lumps and bumps that indicate a low grade of fiber used). The problem with picking cotton thread for the project is that most of it is mercerized, a process not unknown in our time period, but not widely available. Mercerization involves drawing the thread through an acid bath that sears off the stray fibers and seals the thread, much as waxing does with linen thread.

Quilting thread is available that is not mercerized, but waxed (the term used is "glazed"). This is something of a problem for those using sewing machines, as the wax will build up in the machine and clog things like the bobbin, but it's easily handled and of course not a problem for hand top stitching and buttonhole work.

Regarding the discussion about the availability of linen thread, I think you folks are confusing fine linen fabric (imported from Ireland and now the Czech Republic) and thread that can be home spun from flax fibers. While I can't cite any research, I remember seeing statistics that show linen the more common thread used in hand-made garments of the period. Perhaps someone can offer some details on this question?

[Yellowhammer]

Mary,

I disagree with your assertion that linen was imported by the South in any quantities during the war. If it was being imported, it doesn't seem to have been used in military garments. At a time when all imported goods had to be run through the blockade, and the prices of imported goods were inflated when available at all, the Confederacy was substituting cotton for all things linen. The vast majority of the imported cloth I have seen listed on shipping manifests has been woolen or wool/cotton (satinette and cassimere.)

This is borne out by Confederate military clothing and equipage. Cottons are used for fills, linings, and accoutrements of every sort. Aside from a painted linen belt, the vast majority of Confederate cloth equipage was cotton. I believe you'll agree this arguement is fairly intuitive.

In the North, where linen was being produced as well as imported (business as usual along the northern coast), linen was used for a variety of military goods from haversacks to knapsacks to summer-weight trousers. (The Troiani collection houses a pair of Federal officer's linen trousers.)

You comments about 18th and early 19th cen use of lined are quite accurate. However, I just haven't seen anything that would support that assertion for the wartime south. The use of cotton over linen is especially true of military garments.

Going back to Jensen, the linen lining of the Tait-produced garments is so unique in Confederate military garments that it is one of the key elements for indentifying the maker of that group of jackets. In fact, the P.Tait jackets are the only CS QM produced/issued garments I am aware of that use any linen of any kind and that includes both thread and cloth.

[wildflower]

Dear John,

I think I didn't say it correctly--or perhaps there's a misunderstanding here. And remember, I'm probably questioning conclusions that have been elsewhere explained in contexts I wasn't involved in.

I don't think that anyone disputes that cotton is king at this time. But that doesn't rule out that linen wasn't an elderly dowager queen perhaps kept in exile(okay, that silly metaphor made me giggle so much that I just can't resist sharing it--I do take your convictions with respect).

My point is only that it can't be logically derived from the evidence of lack of manufacture that items weren't commonly available. That is not to assert the reverse--just to note that the quoted author's consideration was short of all possibilities--and lacking in empirical evidence (at least from what was quoted).

For instance, if you apply that argument to a modern item that isn't manufactured in the United States (say, television sets)--and consider a wartime context where television sets were suddenly blocked from the market, even for a period as long as the Civil War--saying that they weren't manufactured here remains a fairly insignificant factoid. That's perhaps a weird example, but it serves as a parallel to my criticism of the quote's logic.

I don't believe there is much dispute that the principle use of linen at this time was for household uses. The commonality of this use is documented in artifacts. However, household linens tend to be long lasting (even today, sheets are kept for many decades), so the effects of wartime blockades would have been minimal.

That said, if you can imagine a wartime context--where, as I understand, the South was also blocked from the export/import of cotton to manufacturing mills--the use of linen thread as an ersatz item when cotton was not handy is not outside the realm of possibility.

That is not the same as an assertion of its use--indeed, even knowing that the old stuff was so much better, I am still leery of whether it could have been used in any practical sense for more than hand sewing. Moreover, my only experience using modern linen thread is--as I have mentioned--that except for button holes, it is inferior to cotton (don't know what vintage thread would handle like).

But regardless--and microscopic inspection of as many possible fiber remnants of the real thing is the most valid means for determine this. That said, if linen is identified (anywhere, for that matter), it may not be possible to reproduce it using modern items. That puts reenactors in a difficult situation--since substitution under any circumstance becomes an awfully difficult game.

I think substitution is a point that may need a new thread. It certainly is a provocative discussion point (but one I hope can be respectfully considered), so let me lay it down to you folk: where does the "authentic campaigner" stand when the modern equivalents are anachronistic for one reason or another?

Finally, I wonder if I could ask you another question I have. I have read many references on these forums (including this thread) to the Peter Tait Jacket. I'm stupid here--does this mean that there is only one extant example of a particular common style of uniform? If that is true, what do you guys know about the real person who was Peter Tait?--and why no other examples (of an apparently common item) survived? I'm asking this not to critique source items, but to understand something that isn't obvious.

YMOS,

Mary Dotson

[va-yank]

Mary,

Yes, So-Fro Fabrics is a "Mainstream" vendor of polyester and spandex found in many mid-continent strip malls. FHW (Family Heirloom Weavers) is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Located in Pennsylvania, FHW turns out domet flannel and such for our benefit.

Anyone out there,

Getting back to what is proper in a garment. Which would be the preferable thread with which to sew an issue shirt, linen or cotton, and why? Can we tell which type is which very easily when examining original garments?

Regards,

[Michael McComas]

Finally, I wonder if I could ask you another question I have. I have read many references on these forums (including this thread) to the Peter Tait Jacket. I'm stupid here--does this mean that there is only one extant example of a particular common style of uniform? If that is true, what do you guys know about the real person who was Peter Tait?--and why no other examples (of an apparently common item) survived? I'm asking this not to critique source items, but to understand something that isn't obvious.

Mary,

Peter Tait was a manufacturer of military equipment in the UK. He had offices in London, a manufactory in Limerick, and his own fleet of highly successful blockade runners. There was recently an excellent biographical sketch of him posted on these forums. He did well from the War Between the States, engaged in contracts for the Crown, and was elected mayor. Not bad for a fellow who was fired from his first job.

http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=342&highlight=Tait

There are, according to Jensen, at least nine surviving jackets of Tait manufacture. Two appear in Echoes of Glory, both being piped infantry jackets. There are others that have red or blue colored facings for the collar instead of piping. Two jackets are in the collection of the Museum of the Confederacy, both of which were altered from their original appearance. It is rumored that there is a pair of Tait trousers floating around, but no one who has reportedly seen them at various Civil War shows can relate the provenance.

http://www.military-historians.org/company/journal/confederate/confederate-3.htm This is the Jensen article, with the discussion of Tait jackets being the first item on the page.

Happy New Year!

-Michael

[KarinTimour]

Dear Mary, Fred, et al:

First of all, I'm really enjoying this discussion, and welcome, Mary to these boards, it's fun to have a new person speaking up on these issues, and helping us to rethink and relook at the material culture aspects of these questions.

Assuming, Fred, that when you ask whether linen or cotton thread was used to "sew an issue shirt" you are referring to a Federal issue, domet flannel shirt, the availability/nonavailability of linen in the CSA has no bearing on your question.

Linen, Fiber Length, Modern manufacturing
In a couple of the posts above there is discussion of the contrast between old linen and linen of present day manufacture. Mary, you mentioned in an earlier post that in modern linen manufacture, the fibers are cut to a uniform length, rather than being spun at their natural lengths, which tend to vary. I suspect that this is a key to the differences between the tensile strength of the modern vs. the older thread. When flax is prepared for hand spinning, you will have fibers of different lengths, and the goal of spinning is to permanently twist the fibers around each other, overlapping as you come to the end of one flax fiber so that on a microscopic level they catch and hold each other. Think of this as sort of like the way that you want the shingles on a roof to overlap --but in the shape of a thread, if that makes any sense. If you have fibers of different lengths, the "overlaps" will happen at different points along the thread. I suspect that when the unspun flax is cut to a uniform length, the "joins" where the ends of the flax are likely to occur on a regular basis and will be shorter and closer together. Hence, a weaker thread. Another issue to consider is that most modern thread is spun to specs so that it can be used in sewing machines, which usually means that it must be very thin and very uniform. If thread is being handspun, it may or may not be thin enough to be used in sewing machines. Most likely not, unless the spinner is very experienced.

The unevenness of handspun cotton thread, and the "bumps" or "slubs" in the thread made it very difficult or useless in 19th century sewing machines.
Often, it simply couldn't be spun finely enough to be used in a machine. I"ve read accounts of people picking apart machine-spun cloth or garments that had been purchased pre-war and that contained machine spun cotton thread to try and use it in sewing machines during the war, usually not very successfully.

The preparation of flax to be spun into linen is extremely labor intensive, and involves dragging the flax through gradually finer and finer hackles, which are upright metal (usually iron) combs with teeth that can be 8 inches long. Assuming someone had all the tools, they didn't always have enough people with the skills to do this. Keep in mind that by the 1860s, the textile mills of England and New England had been in operation for 25 years or so, driving down the cost of factory produced cloth, and fewer and fewer people even retained the skills of the different steps to produce the stuff. In terms of cotton, which takes much less work to get it ready for spinning, on many planations the only people who had retained these skills were either the grandmothers and greatgrandmothers, or the slave spinners and weavers who were producing the "slave cloth" which was used to clothe the slaves.

If they didn't have hackles to separate the broken bits of flax plant from the fiber to be spun into linen, I question whether they could get replacement hackles, since most metal was needed for the war effort.

With regard to household linen that had been made prior to the war (sheets, tablecloths, napkins) much of this was likely sacrificed early in the war to make bandages and lint for dressing wounds. Most early accounts of civilian activity North and South discuss the "frenzy of bandage rolling and lint picking" which ensued immediately after war was declared. When you read about people "picking lint" they are talking about taking linen which has been cut into a 4x4 inch square and literally picking it apart by hand to produce a pile of threads, which are then carefully tied together and shipped to hospitals. "Scraping lint" means that you take your 4x4 inch square of linen, pin or hold it on a board and scrape a knife across it to peel linen shavings that are then gathered, bundled and sent to hospitals.

These lint bundles were used by surgeons to pack wounds -- in the early 1800s it was believed that the linen was a healthful material which would encourage the body to grow tissue when a wound was packed with linen lint. Linen was also used to make rolled bandages as well. Initially the hospitals were flooded beyond capacity with huge shipments of lint. As medicine advanced through the war, it became clear to many medical providers that packing wounds with ancient and unsterlized thread was contributing to infection rates and sepsis, and there was a noticable swing away from the use of lint for medical pruposes by about mid-War.

But in the meantime, I suspect that quite a few households literally shredded their entire linen closets, and then turned to coarser homespun sheets for replacement bedclothing.

In the article on homespun linen that Mary has referenced in the current month's issue of Antiques magazine, I think it's very telling that the surviving 18th and 19th century linen artifacts they are discussing are from Pennsylvannia. I suspect that the number of suriving linens from the Southern states is much, much smaller. Again, I could be totally wrong, these are assumptions I'm making.

Mary wrote:

So, I take exception with the author who made that comment. I don't agree that a lack of domestic manufacture was an indication of unavailability--it probably was imported, just as it always was. By comparison, rum wasn't ever made significantly in the US, but there was plenty of it, nevertheless!

I reply:
But rum was an important component in the triangular trade that was going on through the antebellum period. I don't remember exactly how this worked (someone who knows more about it chime in), but wasn't it that New England was exporting salt cod which was shipped to Jamaica as a cheap form of protein to feed the slaves working in the sugar plantations. The ships that took the cod to Jamaica then loaded up with molasses which was shipped to Europe to be made into rum, and then the rum was exported back to the US?

It's hard sometimes to realize the impact the blockade had on ordinary Southerners, especially those inland from ports. A wide selection of items which were common, cheap and available both before the war and very soon after it had completely disappeared by the third year of the war. Things like sewing needles, either hand or machine, cotton and wool cards to prepare fibers for spinning, sewing pins, even glass or metal buttons (and I'm assuming buckles as well) were unavailable or extremely expensive. The Northern states, and the occupied Southern states had access to the wide range of manufacturerd goods being made in the North or imported to the North.

Remember, we're talking about a very short period -- basically late 1861 - mid 1865, less than four years. During this time I suspect it was very hard to get linen thread or fabric in the CSA. Even if it was brought in through the blockade, and you had the funds to buy it, your neighbors would have a field day discussing the fact that you were buying blockaded goods, thus encouraging less space in blockade runners to be committed to war materiel. Parthenia Hague discusses how, in southern Alabama any woman who showed up in a new dress was quick to reveal to the neighbors where she'd gotten the cloth -- "made over" redyed and reworked old clothing, homespun fabric, etc. so as to avoid being Item A on the gossip list that week. She mentions that the local shopkeeper had imported cotton calico cloth and everyone went down to the store to look at and feel the bolts, but the cost and the thought of what would be said about you kept many from buying any of the fabric.

Mary wrote:
Nevertheless, linen was the primary fabric for household goods, right up until the early 20th century. That's easily documentable. There are also many extant linen shirts (and cotton shirts with linen bosum pieces) from this period. I have also read several Victorian household manuals that indicate that "cambric" was preferred for small clothes. They associated it with healthful qualities and purity.

I reply:
I suspect that they may have preferred the healthful qualities of cambric, but again, could they get it during the period we're talking about? Perhaps some of the shirts with cotton and linen piecing are an example of trying to stretch what little linen you had with the cotton fabric that was more easily and cheaply obtained.

Mary wrote:
My copy of Florence Montgomery is buried somewhere downstairs while I paint new bookshelves--or I'd run and try to quote the great goddess herself!

Ok, you got me there -- who is or was Florence Montgomery?

I"m really enjoying hearing about the differences between the 18th century stuff and then trying to figure out whether it was or wasn't used in our period, and if so, where.

Looking forward,
Karin Timour
Domestic Arts and Honorable Trades Society
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

[Hank Trent]

Mary Dotson wrote:
Cambric was a very fine linen (not cotton) cloth--but not the nubby course linen sold these days.... Later, in the 20th century, when modern manufacturing (chopping the fibers) made true cambric production impossible, "cotton cambric" emerged. To apply the modern definition of cambric as cotton is anachronistic.

From Webster's 1853 Dictionary:

"Cambric, n. A species of extremely fine white linen, made of flax, said to be named from Cambray, in Flanders, where it was first manufactured. Cambric is also made of cotton."

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[vbetts]

Florence Montgomery is the author of _Textiles in America, 1650-1870_. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1984.

Vicki Betts
vbetts@gower.net

[va-yank]

"Assuming, Fred, that when you ask whether linen or cotton thread was used to 'sew an issue shirt' you are referring to a Federal issue, domet flannel shirt, the availability/nonavailability of linen in the CSA has no bearing on your question."

Right, the question was not concerned with availability of cotton vs linen thread in the CSA. Given some of the statements made, for instance that there were mills manufacturing linen thread in the north, linen thread could have been available there. To restate the question then, does linen thread appear in army issue garments of northern manufacture? And is it easy to distinguish cotton thread from linen thread when examining surviving examples?

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

"To restate the question then, does linen thread appear in army issue garments of northern manufacture? And is it easy to distinguish cotton thread from linen thread when examining surviving examples?"

1. The U.S. Quartermaster Manual specifies No. 30, 35, and 40 "weight" linen thread in the various clothing descriptions. Chris Sullivan did a study of
Quartermaster contracts and orders for linen thread, but I have never seen it published. It appears at times, that cotton thread was substituted for linen at times. Nick ************'s website previously had a brief article on cotton thread entitled "A Bump on the Logwood" that spoke about cotton thread.

2. I am not good enough to determine linen versus cotton thread by eye-sight without using a microscope to look at the fiber structure- band-like for cotton and more smooth for linen. In general though, linen fibers tend to catch the light a bit better and have a slight sheen than unmercerized cotton, and is a bit more "stretchier" than cotton.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[tmdreb]

From Capt. Wharton's CSR (QM of the Houston Depot) we find the following statement from 1864: "The materials used in this shop have been...Lindseys...Linen...Flax Thread, Silk Thread, Spool Cotton, coarse Cotton Thread..." He goes on to state that this "Flax Thread" was used for both the jackets and trowsers his shop was making. Wharton makes it quite clear that he is describing what had already been made at the depot.

When I get around to making my repro of a Houston Depot jacket, it will be sewn with linen thread.

[va-yank]

Kurt,

Thanks as always, for the courteous and informative reply. I will also look in a couple of the volumes I have, Report to the Secy of War, etc to see how and what type of thread was listed for what periods/locations.

Of course this doesn't help our Confederate friends any.

There seem to be three questions here,

What was available and where?
Is there a real modern equivalent available to us today?
Why use linen thread vs. using cotton, given that both are available?

This topic must be well represented in the AC archives, and hopefully that information will be available to us again. Although I for one really don't mind seeing questions revisited and answers revised.

[Yellowhammer]

Mary,

You state, "My point is only that it can't be logically derived from the evidence of lack of manufacture that items weren't commonly available."

The lack of manufacture, combined with the lack of importation, created shortages very quickly.

Karin's post explains it much better so there is no need for me to restate her argument.

[Bill Cross]

I still feel as if this useful and interesting discussion has not made a clear distinction between linen thread and linen fabric. While it is clear to me that linen fabric would have disappeared in the South by mid-war for all except the wealthy who could patronize blockade runner imports, I've seen no evidence that the thread used was all imported. Was linen thread imported? I'm sure it was, but here is evidence of domestic linen THREAD production in the form of a spinning wheel from the Revolutionary period.

http://www.memorialhall.mass.edu/collection/itempage.jsp?itemid=5959

While difficult to make, linen thread seems like something that could have been produced on the home front. I'd like to know if Virginia Mescher has any stats on linen thread from her research into dry goods of the period.

Here are other references to linen THREAD's widespread availability:

http://discoversd.tie.net/continuing/resources/daughter/clay/junker.html

http://www.uppercanadavillage.com/tour17.htm

A detailed history of Irish production of flax is found in:

http://www.longfordroots.com/History/h15.html

A contrarian point of view is contained in:

http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/Essays/Fiber/fiber_wars2.html

which states that cotton has superceded linen by 1850 and that domestic American production had pretty much ceased. This doesn't tell us whether it may have gone on in the South during the war as a supplement to cotton thread, or whether the Federal regulations for issue shirts that specified linen thread were (a.) throwbacks, as much of the regulations are, to an outmoded technology that were ignored by contractors and suppliers; or (b.) faithful indications of the preferred thread used to make these ubiquitous garments.

For those who want to learn about flax processing, I also ran across this very interesting web site:

http://www.ealdormere.sca.org/university/flaxspinning.shtml

[vbetts]

Just to add a little background to the linen discussion--

Flax Production in Southern States--1860
Alabama--111 lbs.
Arkansas--3,821 lbs.
Florida--0 lbs.
Georgia--3,303 lbs.
Kentucky--728,234 lbs.
Louisiana--0 lbs.
Mississippi--50 lbs.
Missouri--109,837 lbs.
North Carolina--216,490 lbs.
South Carolina--344 lbs.
Tennessee--164,294 lbs.
Texas--115 lbs.
Virginia--4,487,808 lbs.

Agriculture of the United States in 1860; Compiled from the Original REturns of the Eighth Census..., p. xc-xcii

The amount of flax produced in the States and Territories in 1850 was 7,709,676 pounds, and in 1860 4,720,145 pounds. In other words, the production of flax has fallen off almost one half since 1850.

Since the commencement of the war flax culture has received increased attention, owing to the scarcity of cotton [this is a Northern publication], and it is not improbable that, were the census taken now, it would be found that the flax crop was at least as great as in 1850. The climate of the northern States is admirably adapted to the growth of flax, and all that is needed to make it a highly remunerative crop is the introduction of machines for dressing the fibre and preparing it for the market. Great improvements have recently taken place in the machines for this purpose, and there can be no doubt that flax will be much more extensively cultivated. . . .

The production of flax in the southern States has fallen off more than one-half since 1850. Virginia is the principal flax-producing State in the south. She raises more flax than all the other southern States. The amount of flax raised in Virginia has fallen off from one million pounds in 1850, to less than half a million pounds in 1860. North Carolina and Tennessee are the only other southern States in which flax is grown to any extent. . . .

In 1850 there was less than five and a half ounces of flax raised in the whole States and Territories to each inhabitant, and in 1860 less than two and a half ounces to each person....The southern States produced produced over four ounces in 1850 to each person, and only 1.52 ounces in 1860.

As we have before remarked, there can be but little doubt that since the census was taken, there has been considerable increase in the growth of flax; but making full allowance for this probable increase the production of flax in the United States, with a climate admirably adapted for its growth, is exceedingly small. The principal cause of this is doubtless owing to the high price of labor, which renders the preparation of the crop more expensive than it is in other countries from which our imports of flax are derived. If the machines recently introduced for dressing flax shall prove as efficient as present experience indicates, the production of flax, stimulated by the high price of cotton, will greatly increase.

Manufactures of the United States in 1860; compiled from the Original Returns of the Eighth Census.
p.ciii
With the exception of cordage, the manufactures of hemp and linen in the United States have never been general or extensive. At present they are confined chiefly to two States, and to the production of a very limited number of products. In 1860 this industry employed, in the two States of Massachusetts and New York, ten establishments, having an aggregate capital of $639,795, and 528 hands, of whom 277 were females. The total cost of labor was $113,048, and of material, $327,770 per annum. The latter sum embraced the value of 998 tons of flax used, from which were manufactured woven goods, twines, and thread, to the value of $699,570. ... [In Massachusetts], the American Linen Company, at Fall River, which was the largest [in the state], ran 4,000 spindles and 200 looms by steamppower, producing, from 350 tons of hemp and flax, 4,000,000 yards of crash, &c., worth $300,000. This product was exclusive of some twine and shoe thread made in the State from flax, tow, and Manilla hemp, which is included in the statistics of cordage. The linen mills of New York numbered seven, and were of smaller extent...consumed 303 tons of flax, from which were manufactured goods valued at $184,570. The products included 518,000 pounds of sewing thread, twine, and shoe thread. One establishment, the American Linen Thread Company, made 160,000 pounds of linen thread, valued at $80,000, an average of fifty cents a pound. It employed 50 male hands and 60 females.

The cultivation of flax in the United States for the sake of its fibre is much less general than formerly. With the increase of the cotton culture and manufacture, and the improvements in cotton and woollen machinery, cotton has been extensively substituted for flax and hemp even in household manufactures, which have generally been abandoned for the products of regular factories, either domestic or foreign. Large areas of some of the western and middle States are still devoted to the cultivation of flax for the production of oil from the seed, which has made it a remunerative crop. . . .

Since the taking of the census, and particularly during the late war, the home production of flax has probably been increased, as its manufacture undoubtedly has been, and will be still further increased by reason of improvements in flax-dressing machinery, and in the various processes by which its filament has been assimilated to that of cotton, so as to be spun on cotton machinery, either unaltered or slightly modified....

In 1860, the value of flax imported in the unmanufactured state, duty free, was $213,687, and in 1862 it was $175,870, or about the same as in 1852; for less than half the quantity imported in that year, or 1,421,628 pounds, entered at a duty of $15 per ton. ... In 1860, the value of linens imported was $9,245,816; and of all other manufactures of flax, $1,490,519; the duty on which was about 15 per cent. ad valorem. In 1862, 15,456,358 yards of linen, valued at $2,894,314, and other manufactures of flax to the value of $3,173,672, were imported, the latter sum including thread and twine valued at $876,057. ...

The American Linen Thread Company, at Mechanicsville, New York, exhibited their patent thread [in 1855], said to be equal to any imported. Shoe thread and sewing twine are now made extensively at Andover, Massachusetts, where 650 tons of flax and tow, chiefly imported, are annually used; American flax being used for coarse yarns chiefly.

Vicki Betts
vbetts@gower.net

[va-yank]

In the Report to the Secretary of War, 1865 (that is fiscal year 1865).

Among the items routinely listed for various depots is thread, measured in pounds or balls. Silk for sewing is listed separately. In one instance thread is listed as "Thread, assorted" in one row, and below it "Thread, silk". Several other entries for other depots are written as "Thread, shoe".

There is no specific mention of linen thread that I have found. The book is 890 pages, and I may have missed something.

Still not sure when its suitable to linen thread and when not to linen thread, even though its been a great discussion.

[Spinster]

Question: Does the cotton boll have shorter fibers than the flax plant? Therein would seem to be the making of which is optimally stronger.[/QUOTE]

Cotton does have signficantly shorter fibers than flax--even the hi-bred Egyptian cotton in use today is at best a 2-3 inches long, while some cottons are under an inch.

Flax fibers, on the other hand, can exceed a foot in length. When one sees a spinning wheel pictured with what looks like a very small haystack on a stick, that is a 'dressed' strick of linen--long fibers bundled and ready to spin. The spinning effort usually results in an appearance as if one has rolled in spider webs.

While linen can be exceptionally strong, it also requires special handling when working. One can spin 'line' (the long fibers) or 'tow' (the short broken fibers). Line produces a more lusterous and stronger thread, tow, a rough thread. Either way its a pain--not only do the fibers cut the hands, but one must have a small bowl of water handy and constantly dampen the fibers while spinning, and later on keep them damp while weaving to lessen breakage. As a reward for my efforts, I get cut, raw, chapped, hands, and fabric that is fine, but there is precious little of it. If I had to make my clothing out of linen I made, :o well, I wouldn't be sufficiently covered.

Cotton, with its short fibers, requires a very high twist to hold it together. While it doesn't require wetting while spinning, I have to be careful not to get a lungfull of the short fibers which rapidly become airborne. I also have to pay attention, for it breaks and lumps easily--I don't spin cotton in public, because I can't keep my religion while doing do.

Its a shame that wool doesn't make good sewing thread. Just about any creature with a oposable thumb can spin wool--long enough fibers, but not too long, and just enough grease in the fiber to keep it from cutting skin.