"The Simple Four Button Jacket"

[Dan Wambaugh]

Folks,

Over the last few years of making literally hundreds of dozens and dozens of different types of garment, only one has consistently entertained me and driven me to look forward to constructing it every time I receive an order. That is the simple four button jacket.

There are presently FIVE known surviving examples of the jacket, the most famous of which is the T.V. Brooke jacket that is erroneously listed as a "sack coat" in EoG. Four of these jackets are housed in public collections across the country, with a fifth in private hands. What is more, literally DOZENS of pictures have surfaced with soldiers wearing these jackets, most linked to late-war soldiers serving in Virginia.

http://www.wwandcompany.com/images/YoungConfederate.jpg
This image was found in a small antique shop in Michigan showing what is likely a young confederate soldier wearing a unique style of the four button jacket. Notice that a top buttonhole is not to be found, but that the placement of the pocket, the fullness of the sleeves, and the overall patterning of the collar and front are similar, if not identical to other four buttons surviving today. The date on the image of March of 1865 gives this image a late war provenance much like the other surviving jackets.

Some interesting questions to pose to everyone:

1. Where did the jacket come from? Obviously the similar pattern and construction speak of a single production point, and the number of original surviving examples and surviving photographic examples point toward a depot producing the jackets. But what depot? The operating hypothesis I'm currently working with is a smaller depot in the southwest Virginia area, such as an installation at Lynchburg, Staunton, or other medium-sized town away from the federal army. Another more remote possibility is a soldier's aide society stationed in the same area, but with the increasing price of woolen cloth in the final year of the war I find the idea of even a well-funded citizen's group supplying this many garments impractical.

2. When were they issued? Our soldier above seems to be wearing a relatively new garment. A few wrinkles and wear spots but no staining, rips, or tears. Many other images and the provenances of the surviving originals point to a general timeline from the early fall of '64 up until the end of the war. Could these be an example of the last widely produced garment made from domestically woven yardgoods issued in the eastern theater?


I hope that others will chime in on this discussion with some further information about these extraordinary garments. I have a pile more of info about them that I will be happy to share as the discussion goes on, and I simply don't want to pile it all on at once. So have at it folks!


Best Regards,

[roundshot]

A few issues back "Military Images" did an Alabama issue. There was an Alabama private wearing one of these, which was labled from the "Mobile Depot." It is certainly similar to some of the jackets associated with the Gulf Coast.I'm not espousing this; rather noting the editor's interpretation. There was also a great photo which someone on this board (Doug Cooper?) posted a while back which shows a Texas cavalryman from the Trans-Mississippi in one. I've attached it plus another from eBay.

QM Lawton notes a differention was made between summer and winter uniform issues. This may be a summer ensemble distributed to all parts of the Confederacy. Or it could be a Deep South product as part of inventorysent to Richmond as parts of the south were overrun by invading Federals, hence the late-war VA use. The cut itself is nothing remarkable from what was in general civilian use during the day.

I've seen similar coats among Antietam dead and in Russell's famous Fredericksburg RR trestle photo. I too love these jackets/coats and wear one. I have a couple other photos I'll try to rustle up.

[roundshot]

Here's the Military Images photo, which is in the collection of Alan T. Parker. It shows Private Joseph Parker, Co. D., 57th Alabama Infantry.

[Dan Wambaugh]

Gents,

Ah, so the plot thickens and a western theater and much earlier provenance arises. Earlier this year Cody Mobley presented me with the above image and it prompted many discussions as to how this jacket could be seen on a soldier serving in the west much earlier than the eastern jackets were seen used.

As with many historical searches this raises even more questions than it answers.

1. Again, where and when were they produced?

2. Why have we seen such a dearth of first hand accounts on these jackets? There are any number of accounts talking about being issued uniforms from English army cloth, were these just too plain for anyone to take notice of at the time?

3. Could these jackets (and this is going out on a major limb here and no one is to take this as gospel) be the MOST versatile CS jacket made in terms of area and time period of issue?


Definitely some interesting questions to consider!


Best,

[roundshot]

And then there's this early war line drawing (from a photo) of a member of the 4th Texas. There are those who will authoritatively (?) state this isn't the same coat. Maybe not (SA sacks and JT Martin sacks aren't identical either). It does however point out that the style is not unique even if the details differ. As far as being described in first hand accounts, they were probably so unremarkable in design and construction as to be unworthy of note. An English jacket, however, now that was a Cadillac!

[65thgainf]

I have loved this jacket, since the first time I saw it at GBNP visitor center. I wonder about the lack of accoutrements in some of the photo's... ? I thought the majority of soldier images included them in full gear ? Could these be civilian pics vs. war time pics ?

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f229/jerryholmes/Gettysburg/P8210012.jpg

[Iron Scout]

Gents,

Just to provide a tad of second-hand information from a credible source. Ms. McKenzie Anderson-Schultz of Fig Leaf Patterns (Atlanta History Center) has contended that this jacket's pattern dates dack to the 1840s as a workman's garment, and a popular one too. I've viewed the one in Ross County, numerous times and the textile on that jacket is a very loosely woven and coarse wool/cotton plains. I've always loved these things. Thanks Dan for undertaking this project. Talk to Chinnis and Neal Sexton too as they have numerous notes and photos of the original in Ohio.

Regards,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[neocelt]

Very interesting discussion! It's a shame that we don't have any provenance for the first image in the thread. Based on the lack of a top button & buttonhole, the noticeable angle in the edge of the coat just above the top buttonhole, the reinforcing stitching on the collar and the wrinkling pattern and shading, I would hypothesize that this might be a sack coat w/a fold-down collar and lapels that have been turned up (Don't ask me "Why?"--Your guess is as good as mine, and both would still just be speculation). Tantalizing, I admit...

Regarding the extant artifacts and numerous images of this type of garment: I don't know why we should be surprised to find a simplified jacket style showing up all over the place. If indeed this was a typical antebellum laborer's garment (which I have no reason to doubt), it would seem to be a most worthy candidate for military employment: It is a simpler pattern that the fitted "roundabout," and requires fewer buttons/buttonholes. It does require a bit more cloth (but not much). The fact that clear textual references in official documents to this type of garment haven't surfaced isn't all that surprising, either, since only a fraction of these data still exist (and who among us has surveyed it all?).

To Bob Williams: I would agree that the drawing you posted depicts an example of this style of jacket. Can you please post the bibliographic reference for this artwork (it is apparently based on a photograph)? Indeed, to all posters: PLEASE include complete references for quotations and images. Don't you just hate it when a book isn't footnoted?

Cheers,

[roundshot]

The original engraving of Private Chilton, Co. "H", 4th Texas appeared in the "Official Minutes of Hood's Texas Brigade Monument Dedication," Houston, 1911. I believe it was later reproduced in one of Harold Simpson's volumes on the Texas Brigade.

The "laborers garment" angle is interesting . . . kinda like Civil War Carhartt.

[Dan Wambaugh]

Neill,

I agree with your theory about the origin of this type of jacket. Through his own research of the LoC database and other accounts, my partner Brian has educated me as to the popularity of the simple "laborer's jacket." There are a number of images that show workmen during the war in northern manufacturing establishments that have similar garments. I certainly believe it to be the "beau ideal" of mass-produced military garments in terms of widespread availablity of the pattern, simplicity of construction, durability, and military appearance of the finished garment.

I have been fortunate to have benefitted from Dave Chinnis concerning the Ross County jacket, of which I have been working for the past six months to produce a faithful reproduction. Currently I'm developing a custom woven cloth which will necessarily be a bit nicer than the original stuff (try explaining to a weaver that you want a cloth full of slubs and of a quality that would normally get him fired.) Nevertheless I am confident that it will be very close to the "new" appearance of the original cloth. The Ross County jacket is also unique in the construction technique used to assemble the body which, while allowing for an ease of construction caused a dramatic mistake in the collar area. It is undoubtedly my favorite surviving original garment, if for nothing other than its provenance!


Nick,

The young soldier in the picture could be wearing a sack coat, but I personally don't think so. The wrinkle pattern in the collar and top corner don't seem to belie a folded back lapel. However, it is all conjecture considering we can't see the length of his coat. I simply assert it as a "probable" four button jacket based on the cut and construction of the body and collar, and the placement of the pocket. But with little other provenance than the March '64 date on the picture we will be left forever guessing.



Best,

[brown]

This is a remarkable thread.

Could someone, like Mr White ot others, post a little info on the similar civilian workman's garmet. Either in this thread or another, whatever would be the most fitting for the forum.

Thanks,
Lindsey

[Iron Scout]

Dan,

These jackets have held my attention for a good number years too. The provenence has an interesting story unto itself as John Stillwagon debates and disproves most of Mr. Purdham's stories in a well documented article on the SG board. I can empathize regarding the weaver; been there too! Looking forward to seeing the finished product.

Regards,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[DougCooper]

A few issues back "Military Images" did an Alabama issue. There was an Alabama private wearing one of these, which was labled from the "Mobile Depot." It is certainly similar to some of the jackets associated with the Gulf Coast.I'm not espousing this; rather noting the editor's interpretation. There was also a great photo which someone on this board (Doug Cooper?) posted a while back which shows a Texas cavalryman from the Trans-Mississippi in one. I've attached it plus another from eBay.

QM Lawton notes a differention was made between summer and winter uniform issues. This may be a summer ensemble distributed to all parts of the Confederacy. Or it could be a Deep South product as part of inventorysent to Richmond as parts of the south were overrun by invading Federals, hence the late-war VA use. The cut itself is nothing remarkable from what was in general civilian use during the day.

I've seen similar coats among Antietam dead and in Russell's famous Fredericksburg RR trestle photo. I too love these jackets/coats and wear one. I have a couple other photos I'll try to rustle up.

The photo on the left in Bob's post is contained in Portraits of Conflict, A Photographic History of Texas in the Civil War. Cody Mobley first told me about it. From the book: The man in what appears to be the 4 button jacket is likely Egbert Monroe Heath, the best friend of the man on the right, Horatio Gates Bruce. Both men joined Co H, 20th Texas Cavalry as it was accepted for service in March 1862. Bruce was elected Captain, Heath joined as a private...but then Heath was immediately elected to 1st Lt. There is no record, official or family, that Bruce was ever promoted to Major, but he wears a single star on his collar. Both men were captured at the Battle of Honey Springs, Indian Territory, July 17, 1863. They applied for exchange in Oct 63 but wrote down that they were both disloyal and did not wish to see the authority of the US Government restored...and were denied exchange. They were held prisoner for the duration of the war.

So when was this taken? Good question - taken all together, it is my opinion that it was taken sometime between mid 1862 after muster in and July 63 when they were captured. Unless the guards were in the habit of allowing CS officers to don swords for photos, it seems unlikely that it was taken in prison. Heath's jacket appears as though he has worn it for awhile, and the fact that they are taken together tells me both were officers at the time based on Heath's very early date of promotion to Lt. Heath has the collar folded down on the one side making a lapel and there may be some collar rank, but I cannot tell. Note the full pocket of the jacket.

The jacket itself appears to match the 4 button pattern based on what we can see, including the wooden buttons, topstitching, buttonhole placement, collar shape and pocket.

This is one of my favorite photos of the war.

[roundshot]

While I'm not sure we can positively identify any of the discussed four-buttons here, I've always loved this late 1862 photo of "Confederate Sympathizers in Mo." as a real study of your everyday working-man of the period. Truly "rustics in rebellion." From Vol. V, "Shadows of the Storm."

[hardeeflag]

My thought on the first image is this is just a simple civilian sack coat with the collar and lapel tunred up.

[Citizen_Soldier]

Greetings,
I have wondered for awhile if these garmets aren't indeed a citizen sackcoat pattern that was militarized for the Rebellion. Let me explain a little for my reasoning on this subject.

From the 1840's on you see the informal sackcoat become a common fixture in the wardrobe of the American male. These early sackcoats were a pattern that had narrow sleeves and fairly close fitting body that lasted as the "instyle" cut until the middle part of the 1850's when the looser baggier sack coat begins to be introduced. However, the earlier pattern was still being sold as a more conservative cut and with the Panic of 1857 somewhat retarding the proliferation of modern fashions to some areas of the US, these garments are still seen in numbers by the time the Rebellion starts and into the early 1860's until they're mostly replaced by more modern cuts.

These early sackcoats fit in a different way than the more modern late 1850's garments, and would be close fitting in the body...giving the appearence to the modern reenactors eye as a "shell jacket fit" of sorts. Especially when one considers that many of the reproduction citizen sack coats on the market seem to follow the later baggier looser late 1850's style.

I wonder if these aren't some of the "worker coats" being referred to in this thread, as the more conservative styles fell out of fashion they would be implemented as work clothing...an activity you see taking place pretty much across the entire 19th century in regard to mens wear.

Being that the sack coat was a cheap mass produced untailored men's garment during the period, I could with educated conjecture easily see for the same reasons these garments with a now militarized pattern being produced and distributed by state agencies, the central goverment, and through the communtation system. Perhaps these "4 button shell jackets" are a militarized sackcoat pattern with a conservative cut.

Recently this summer a citizen's sack coat that follows this early pattern came out of the woodwork along with a pair of citizens trousers dating from cut to the early to mid 1850s. The provanance for the pieces state they were worn by an Iowa soldier when he enlisted in the Rebellion. At this time they are undergoing research and verification by the owner of the private collection they reside in. However, I had an opportunity to examine this linen summer sack coat and without the fold down lapel, the fit of the garment in the body appears very similar to that of a shell jacket.

Just my thoughts,

Darrek Orwig

[Tennessee Boy]

Hi Guys

http://www.oldsouthantiques.com/forsale/os270p1.htm

Not sure if this link adds to the discussion.

Ian Smith
------------
55th Virginia

[neocelt]

Darrek,

Thanks for your contribution to the dialogue! You've articulated an interesting refinement of the hypothesis that this type of Confederate jacket/coat is based on a common antebellum laborer's garment. The Midwestern/Federal association of the artifact you mentioned is thought-provoking (to say the least!), however, until its provenance can be established it isn't overly helpful--any chance you might be able to at least post a photo of the artifact? Alternatively, can you (or anyone else here) possibly post a period image (or at least the bibliographic info. to direct us to one) of the earlier-style, more tightly-fitted civilian sack coat of which you speak? I concur with Bob Williams that the group shot of the good ol' boys from Missouri is one of the very best examples of the varieties of common period daywear that I have ever seen (still, I don't see one of these tighter-fitting sack coats represented here...)! I think more photos would be helpful in furthering this discussion.

Dan: You discount the possibility that the coat in the image you initially posted is simply a civilian sack coat with a turned-up collar based on your interpretation of the "wrinkle pattern in the collar and top corner," but you do not address the other details I noted: the lack of a top button, the noticeable angle in the front edge of the coat above the uppermost buttonhole--both of which are indicative of a lapel. The additional rows of reinforcing stitching on the collar, too, are typical of the construction of the underside of a collar which is intended to be folded down (they help hold the interfacing in place and are only visible on the underside of the collar); conversely (and please correct me if I'm wrong about this), I don't believe this feature is evident on any of the extant examples of the four-button Confederate uniform jackets/coats under discussion. Further, with all due respect, I think it's a stretch to label this garment a "probable" Confederate uniform item of any type when the image was discovered in Michigan and has absolutely nothing to lend credence to the hypothesis that it is anything other than a portrait of a working-class civilian. In your first posting, you say the sitter is "likely a young confederate soldier" and in a later posting you remove all doubt by referring to "The young soldier in the picture...". You seem convinced that this is an image of a Confederate soldier--why? Perhaps he is, and perhaps not. But without anything to rule this out as being an image of a young civilian member of the working class (which is statistically much more "probable" than his being a Confederate soldier), the image is nothing more than an interesting example of common period civilian attire. Please don't misread my intentions; I am indeed grateful to you for bringing up the subject--I'm just not convinced that the unidentified image from a "small antique shop in Michigan" helps clarify the issue.

Cheers,
Nick

[Dan Wambaugh]

Nick,

You definitely make an interesting point, and I certainly agree that because of the lack of the button more than anything else it causes this image to be somewhat suspect. I had never really considered the middle row of shadow to be a second line of stitching for the interfacing, in fact I had never given it much thought whatsoever, but based on its appearance this could be very likely and as such, coupled with the missing button would definitely begin to change the conclusion on this particular garment.

There still is something wrong about the image (or is that right) that leads me to believe that it is not simply a civilian picture. The war time date, the subject casually wearing a hat, the cut and appearance of his garment, the exposed welted pocket on only one side, and when examined under a loop the coarse weave of the fabric just don't make things sit right to me for this to be a common civilian sack coat. Taken individually all of these features could be easily dismissed as being part of a simple individual's style, but taken all together it certainly makes one pause.

It's all unfortunately academic now at any rate, as the image was already sold at auction earlier this year.


Darreck,

I like your thoughts very much, and think that your ideas behind the origin are a very viable possibility. Certain features of the original coats both speak to a civilian and sack coat origin, but deny them as well. The wider front facing exhibited in all of the surviving originals (and shown clearly in Ian's images of the private collection jacket) suggest a garment originally designed to have a lapel folded back.

However, there are a few features that make one pause when considering these garments next to a common civilian sack coat. One major stand-out feature is that the tight-fitting body is contrasted by the billowy one-piece sleeve. The pattern is distinctly different than that of the sack coat, with back pieces of a jacket and a front piece that seems to incorporate the side piece into it. These dramatic pattern differences belie a distinctly different garment from a sack coat, and are much more similar to a jacket in construction and fit.

If I had the proper software (or even a small amount of drawing talent) I would illustrate what I mean with a "four button" pattern layed over a sack coat pattern displaying the differences. Perhaps someone out there with a little more time and talent than I could do so?

Nevertheless, I think that the idea of a pre-war civilian pattern and style adpoted for military use is very feasible, and would certainly explain the proliferation across the south at seemingly all times of the war. And I would also be very interested in seeing the information on the original garment you have discovered when you want to make it public.


Another question for the general assembly: Why is the origin of the jacket being attributed to the Richmond Depot? Obviously, several of the surviving originals have late war Virginia ties, but does that necessarily mean that they were Richmond depot items?



Best,

[roundshot]

That some of these coats have VA association does not mean they are Richmond Depot products. We forget that the Confederate QM Department was a system. I get back to the issue of seasonal clothing referred to in an earlier post.

As part of a report to Sec'y of War Breckinridge on 2/16/65, QM A.R. Lawton includes the following endorsement from Major Wm. B. Cross: "As to the future the greatest difficulty will be to provide the raw material-wool and leather-the former, especially. The manufacturing facilities are ample. Efforts are being made to provide the deficiency of wool from the Trans-Mississippi region, where it is abundant. Some deliveries have recently been made on this side. The wool is worked up as rapidly as had. By using cotton clothing during the summer and spring and reserving the woolen goods for fall and winter, it is hoped and believed that enough may be had to prevent suffering next winter. We will get through this season without much trouble." [OR Series iv, Vol. 3, p. 1090].

Note the deliveries from "out west" cited above and the seasonal issues by type of clothing. I would also submit that the large two-hole wooden buttons seen on some of these coats scream, or at least loudly hollar, "Deep South" in origin. The buttons seen on Richmond garments are generally of a smaller 4-hole variety. Samples may be seen in the Virginia Historical Society's Battle Abbey collection.

As one last thing I attach a picture showing the "Old Guard" of Confederate Veterans in Richmond in 1890. I have often wondered if the fellow on the left is none other than Thomas Vaden Brook of the Richmond Howitzers. His black collared 4 button jacket, trousers, gunners haversack, and hat seem to match those worn by Brooke and now held in the MOC, and depicted in EOG. Anyway, just a speculation.

[Citizen_Soldier]

Greetings,
The cut of the body of the conservative extant sack coat I referred to in my earlier post on this thread is quite similar to that of a shell jacket and not at all like that of any of the reproduction sack coats currently on the market that I'm familiar with. It has a three piece body, however the front panels wrap around the sides to a back panel cut similar to the pieced center panel of a CW era shell jacket. When this garment is placed on a form it fits very much like a long bodied shell jacket. However that is where the similarities to a military garment end as the piece is certainly a mass produced citizens garment.

As to the provenance of the piece, the story is currently checking out. It appears the piece was worn to a training camp and worn for a short time until goverment uniforms were issued, after which it was sent home. There is a fair bit of wear to the waist and shoulders of the textile from equipment belts being worn over it.

A quick and easy source for many in regards to citizens sack coats of an earlier pattern would be Joan Severa's book "Dressed for the Photographer."

At this time I haven't seen any garments that look like "4 button shell jackets" with stand up collars being used by civilian workers during the period of the Rebellion, could anyone share any material they have on these? The closest I've found with a standup collar is a mechanics coat that is cut along similar lines...being offered in denim and cotton duck during the 1890's....nearly thirty something years after the conclusion of the conflict.

There seems to be perhaps differences in cut and style between some of the "4 button military coats" in photographs and the extant examples with a possible Richmond connection...could there have been multiple manufacturers across the south with varying production numbers?

I'll try to post more when I get a chance, this is a good thread.

Darrek Orwig

[neocelt]

This thread is turning out to be a very good one, indeed!

Darrek,

I'm not sure how easy it is for most folks to procure a copy of Dressed for the Photographer (even here at UVA the only copy is held in Special Collections), but I'd agree that it is a phenomenal resource if one can lay hands on it. I can see no reason why a jacket of this type wouldn't have been made under the auspices of clothing depots all over the Confederacy. Having said that, minor variations in cut and assembly techniques amongst bona fide Confederate jackets of this type don't necessarily imply different sources of origin (Consider: The same can be said of bog-standard Federal uniform items produced by local Philidelphia women under the auspices of the Schuylkill Arsenal, and are all of the so-called "Columbus Depot" jackets identical?). I believe that in our earnest quest for knowledge, we sometimes tend to overthink these things. Witness our overwhelming urge to categorize this stuff by every anomaly we can find; hence, the ubiquitous "Type A" (or better yet, "Type IIIb"!) syndrome. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...

Dan, you said: "There still is something wrong about the image (or is that right) that leads me to believe that it is not simply a civilian picture. The war time date, the subject casually wearing a hat, the cut and appearance of his garment, the exposed welted pocket on only one side, and when examined under a loop the coarse weave of the fabric just don't make things sit right to me for this to be a common civilian sack coat. Taken individually all of these features could be easily dismissed as being part of a simple individual's style, but taken all together it certainly makes one pause." I'm afraid I just don't follow. Every detail you mentioned--whether taken singly or collectively--can as easily be attributed to a civilian as a Confederate soldier. I simply can't see where the fact that the image has a wartime date (which, incidentally, you variously ascribe to March 1864 and March 1865--which is correct?) is compelling evidence of a martial connection, nor the fact that the gent is wearing his hat in a "casual" manner. The cut of the coat is more civilian than military, and I believe every period civilian sack coat I've ever seen has had a single "welted" (sic - placket-faced) breast pocket. The fact that the fabric appears to be of a utilitarian coarse weave or texture only reinforces to the supposition that this is a working-class citizen's garment. Indeed, in one of your earlier posts, you yourself stated: "Through his own research of the LoC database and other accounts, my partner Brian has educated me as to the popularity of the simple 'laborer's jacket.' There are a number of images that show workmen during the war in northern manufacturing establishments that have similar garments." Seems to me you've made a pretty compelling agrument against the "probability" of this fellow being a Confederate soldier. While it's tempting to want to see a Confederate in an image like this one, we simply have no evidence I can discern to reasonably draw this conclusion. Dan, I'm not trying to bust your chops here, but I think it's important that we don't muddy the water when discussing something as specific as the Confederate four-button jacket--our study sample should only include artifacts and images with sound provenance of Confederate association.

Cheers,

[brown]

Nick,
I agree with your point about constructions differences being common even in a single source. To further your point, "are all of the so-called "Columbus Depot" jackets identical?"; I believe that all the surviving examples have notabe difference and none are near identical. Of course, they are but a fraction of the total production (as seen in photographs and descriptions) and we don't know for sure that they are all from the same location of production, but that might be just a little too detailed for this discussion.

This thread just keeps getting better, doesn't it.
Lindsey

[Dan Wambaugh]

Nick,

I meant March of '65 in both instances, I apologize for any confusion. I really don't care to discuss the merits of the picture one way or another, that was not the intention, purpose, or goal of this thread, and honestly only replied to your concerns out of politeness. The bottom line I feel is that yours and Rich's concerns are valid, and cause the image to certainly be suspect, especially without any concrete provenance. I personally don't feel that it can ever be decided completely, just what is more likely determined. We can't ask the original individual to stand up, take off his coat, and show it to us, so honestly we can never be 100% sure.

I have nothing really to gain from it being a CS soldier or a civilian, I simply thought it a good example of the jacket to begin the discussion that I had on hand while the article on the Southern Guard page was unavailable. Incidentally, now that their page is back up and running, I recommend to anyone who has not done so already read the wonderful article John Stillwagon wrote on the surviving jackets here:

http://www.southernguard.org/education/brooke.html

This article is a wonderful stepping off point for anyone who would like to learn about the jackets, and John's research into the origin of the Ross County jacket is fascinating and raises many questions.

I think that a central production facility being the source for the majority of these jackets is still a distinct possibility, as well as a pre-war civilian use of similar jackets making the pattern and construction widely available across the south and available to any local manufacturing concern. These two possibilities are certainly not mutually exclusive, as we know that some CS issue items (most notably trousers) were simply civilian patterns pressed into military use by the central depots. It is very possible that this could have been what happened with these simple garments.

It is unfortunate that no paper documentation concerning these garments has as yet come to light. Hopefully there is a document out there long forgotten in a collection that will give us a precious morsel of information, but unfortunately with the destruction of such a high number of government records at the end of the war, some parts of the history of these garments will leave us making educated guesses, perhaps forever.


Best,

[GreencoatCross]

For your consideration:

Firstly, a CDV of Sligo Iron Works employee George "Reb" Ford, taken between 1861 and 1865. Other employees of Sligo were photographed in their work clothing, about half of whom are wearing thick gray knit wool shirts. This man, however, is the only one photographed with a coat. At first glance the garment appeared to be a Federal-issue fatigue blouse but I do not feel that it is due to the lack of the kidney-shaped breast pocket and what appears to be a slash pocket on the wearer's left side of the coat. I do not feel that this is a "mass-produced" worker's jacket but instead I feel that it may simply be a second-hand, cast-off sack coat that the worker deemed fit for labor use.

Second, photographs of a mysterious CS garment worn by a 9th Tennessee soldier named George McDill. The story thus far goes that McDill wore this garment during the Perryville Campaign and that he was sent home shortly thereafter, possibly wearing this garment. The relatively good condition this garment is in lends some creedence to this notion. If anyone has further information regarding McDill's service, please post! The general appearance of this garment is similar to the CS four-button jacket but different at the same time; the cut appears to be closer to a stylish civilian garment or Federal fatigue blouse. Close photos of this garment show that the jeancloth is an oatmeal colored sheep's gray wool on a tan cotton warp (probably oxidized) and notes on the garment state that there is a full body lining cut from osnaburg. The construction appears to be completely hand-sewn, buttonholes are well-executed, and the buttons are CS general service "eagle" buttons very similar in design to Alabama Volunteer Corps buttons but without the "AVC" above the eagle.

And third, an image from EoG showing an unidentified Confederate wearing a four-button garment nearly identical in cut and style to the McDill jacket but with a bit of collar trim.

I believe these last two garments to be a completely different animal; they are stylistically different than the "CS four-button jacket" (T.V. Brooke, Ross Co., etc.) in many ways and the McDill jacket holds solid early provenance. Like the CS four-button jackets, these appear to have been produced in govt. manufactories and issued to "local" soldiers.

Too many questions....!!!!

OK....sorry everyone but it seems that I have exceeded my attachment quota and cannot post these fantastic images. Why are there limitations on this?

Brian White
Wambaugh, White, & Co.
www.wwandcompany.com

[roundshot]

The McDill jacket and a lookalike. Probably same genus, different species to the four button. Point is, the cut and styling in its many variations was probably more common than we have supposed.

[brown]

Great image. I really like the centered collar trim an the pocket flaps in the photo.
Thanks for posting (guys).
Lindsey

[GreencoatCross]

Thanks for posting those, they are the exact same images I wanted to post!

Brian White
Wambaugh, White, & Co.
www.wwandcompany.com

[GreencoatCross]

Nick et al,

I want to make it clear that the image Dan initially posted is a scan of a ferrotype that was once in my collection, and purchased by me. Yes, when I saw it I believed it could have possibly been an image of a soldier wearing a "CS four-button jacket" and I bought it. At the time of purchase I believed that the date on the image lent some creedence to my thought that it could be a confederate soldier. Among the other dated 1863 through 1865 ferrotypes (housed in identical pressed paper mattes) were Richmond, VA backmarked images. Later, under magnification and closer scrutiny, I found that the garment was indeed made from a shoddily woven cloth, possibly jean, and noted that some features were similar to those prevalent among surviving four-button jackets. After holding the image in my collection for some time I believed the garment to be a very poorly made, possibly second-hand lower class civilian or worker's garment that shared some features of the four-button jackets known to have been issued to CS soldiers.

Despite this, I don't want some kind of argument made here regarding this one particular image. All details, possibilites, and points of view have already been taken into consideration by me, the original owner, because I hate false advertising but also want to research every image that I own, be it a bad purchase or good purchase.

Brian White
Wambaugh, White, & Co.
www.wwandcompany.com

[Citizen_Soldier]

Greetings,
Joan Severa's book states that some early citizen's sack coats were made out of cotton blends, I would imagine that these could resemble a rough "Sesech" cloth in period photographs. The "Iowa sack coat" for example is made of fine grey linen woven on a brown cotton warp in a plain weave.

Darrek Orwig

[brown]

There have been a number of references to cotton cloth and summer uniforms of cotton in this thread. I know we are discussing a broad range of similar garments, but are any of the originals (military or civilian) made of cotton cloth? Obviously workers' garments of the time would have been made of a broad range of fabrics, but am I correct in understanding that the military-connected jackets are all made of a wool/cotton blend?
Thanks,
Lindsey

[Dan Wambaugh]

Lindsey,

John Stillwagon's survey states that all of the known examples of the war time issue jacket are a wool/cotton jean cloth of varying weaves. The three examples that have been available for close examination (Ross County, GNP, private collection) are all of different materials, but are all of a relatively low quality jeans, some being "tabby weave" or plain weave jeans. The Ross County jacket in particular is made from a rather shoddy plain weave jean with large wool yarns and a relatively low warp count. Of interest also is that the cotton warp has oxidized over time given the cotton fibers a tan cast, but the original color was likely a simple light gray.

Back on the topic of all cotton materials. It certainly would seem from the OR account Mr. Williams uncovered that had the war dragged on into the summer of '65 we would have seen more soldiers wearing all cotton uniforms, and the woolen goods being saved for the cooler months. Perhaps this is something the Confederacy ought to have considered doing all along!


Best,

[BumpusTN]

Second, photographs of a mysterious CS garment worn by a 9th Tennessee soldier named George McDill. The story thus far goes that McDill wore this garment during the Perryville Campaign and that he was sent home shortly thereafter, possibly wearing this garment. The relatively good condition this garment is in lends some creedence to this notion. If anyone has further information regarding McDill's service, please post!
Brian White
Wambaugh, White, & Co.
www.wwandcompany.com[/QUOTE]


Brian,

You might want to check out a copy of "The Confederate Ninth Tennessee Infantry" by JAmes R. Fleming, Pelican Publishing Company, 2006. Mr. Fleming is the Great Great Nephew of George McDill. The book is an excellent source of first hand information about Co. C of the 9th.

Scott Bumpus

[SCSecesh]

It's been a while since I posted here but in regards to the Ross County Jacket, I believe it is safe to use the term "Jacket" and not "Coat", but I would never say "absolute" about anything for the period without having definitive provenance and details.
The relationships between sleeve lengths and body length along with body size is much more jacket-like than coat-like. Really bad cloth and not the best construction, either. There are some really interesting details (or at least interesting to those of us who look too closely at textiles) that give very good hints at construction methods for the Ross County Jacket that are likely different than most would assume today.
Dan,
I found my measurement sheet for this jacket and will send it along when I return. I sent it to Ben a while back but he'd probably never find it if it's at the farm ;-)!

[James the Haggard Ranger]

I am going to chime in here with some evidence that some 4 button jackets were issued as early as October 1862.

This is a quote from W.E. Matthews (33rd Alabama) dairy page 17, " Arriving at Knoxville about October 24, (1862), we had flour, corn meal, bacon, fresh beef, rice, salt, and the first soap we had drawn in two months, and a suit of clothes each, wollen gray jeans, jacket lined with white cotton sheeting, with four C.S.A. brass buttons, a pair of unlined gray jeans pants, white cotton sheeting shirts and drawers and white cotton machine-knit sleasy socks and pair of rough tan brogan hand made wooden pegged hard shoes. Some drew gray hats and those present drew some money. Most or all of us had been using finger knit woolen socks which were sent to us from home."

This is a direct quote so I used his spelling.

I hope this information helps some way.

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

[Doughboy]

Nick,
My first thought exactly. I noticed the similarity of the reinforcements around the collar and the lack of top button and immediately thought "sack coat", possibly civilian. No way to tell for sure but first impressions aren't always erroneous.
Christopher Wilson

[Minieball577]

I got my copy of the Ross county jacket from Dan in the mail today, and it is outstanding. THe Tart Fabric is beautiful, and Dan's work is fabulous. Thanks.

[westcoastcampaigner]

I received my copy of the Ross County jacket in the mail today and all I can say is....WOW!!! Unbelievable work Dan. Dito on the Tart fabric, it's great. Can't wait to get some use out of this one.

Best Regards,

Josh Sawyer
Liberty Rifles

[NC1862]

So, would I be correct in assuming that this would be a mid to late war jacket?

[Dan Wambaugh]

Tyler,

The general conclusion of this discussion would be that while the five surviving four button jackets are tied to the Richmond area in the last year of the war, there is overwhelming photographic and first hand account evidence of similar jackets being used throughout the war in various different theaters and at various different times.


Best Regards,

[ewtaylor]

I am going to chime in here with some evidence that some 4 button jackets were issued as early as October 1862.

This is a quote from W.E. Matthews (33rd Alabama) dairy page 17, " Arriving at Knoxville about October 24, (1862), we had flour, corn meal, bacon, fresh beef, rice, salt, and the first soap we had drawn in two months, and a suit of clothes each, wollen gray jeans, jacket lined with white cotton sheeting, with four C.S.A. brass buttons, a pair of unlined gray jeans pants, white cotton sheeting shirts and drawers and white cotton machine-knit sleasy socks and pair of rough tan brogan hand made wooden pegged hard shoes. Some drew gray hats and those present drew some money. Most or all of us had been using finger knit woolen socks which were sent to us from home."

This is a direct quote so I used his spelling.

I hope this information helps some way.

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

Bean Station,Tn, in Eastern Tennessee was the site of some heavy fighting and large CS fortifications. Most of the area is now under a man-made lake, however there are a few spots (private property) in the winter time accessable to relic hunters. I have a CSA 2pc brass button found in this area. It has the correct period "Superior Quality" backmark, not the post-war "superior quality" backmark.
everett taylor