Jacket

[vmi2009]

I was reading through Stephen W. Sears book "Gettysburg" and in it I found a picture that interests me. On page 56 there is a drawing by Allen C. Redwood of a Confederate soldier. He appears to be wearing something that resembles a sack coat, but the jacket has epulettes. I was wondering if anybody had any information on this jacket.
Very Respectfully,
Joel Barnes
VMI Class of 2009

[jake.koch]

Re: Jacket

I don't have the book at all but as a guess it sounds like a North Carolina sack coat.

[colorsgt26nc]

Re: Jacket

The jacket looks much like a North Carolina sack coat; however, the NC coat did not have true epaulettes. It simply had a strip of colored cloth sew down over the seam.

[Andrew Kasmar]

Re: Jacket

Hi,

Could it be commutation jacket? I know these were not used much in Army of Northern Virginia in mid-1863, but maybe that is what it is.

[Secesh]

Re: Jacket

Andrew,
Who said commutation jackets were not used much by 1863? By who's account / research? It's true that the Commutation System may have ended but many in the ranks still wore privately acquired and donated garments....A look at the CS dead at Gettysburg shows many jackets / coats that defy attribution to any specific depot....Best regards.

[Andrew Kasmar]

Re: Jacket

Hi,

I understand that there were commutation jackets and civilian jackets at Gettysburg and other 1863 battles, but compared to the amount of Richmond Depot jackets it was a small number. The research that I have found indicates that commutation jackets were used up to the end in the war. I in no means was saying that they were not used, but rather that there where not as many as in 1861 and 1862.

[Officer Lightoller]

Re: Jacket

I'm going to have to agree with you on that. If the epaulets are black, that's the main way to tell.

Brendan Macie

26th NC

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Re: Jacket

Hi,

I understand that there were commutation jackets and civilian jackets at Gettysburg and other 1863 battles, but compared to the amount of Richmond Depot jackets it was a small number. The research that I have found indicates that commutation jackets were used up to the end in the war. I in no means was saying that they were not used, but rather that there where not as many as in 1861 and 1862.

Can we quit using the term Commutation Jackets!?! There's no such thing, and no such designation unless your'e coining a new catch phrase.

In Mr. Jenson's Company of Military Historians Article, he outlines a period of time, known as the "Commutation Period". This is a period of time before the mass production of goods as set forth by the Confederate Depots, of which, individuals or units would be eligible for Reimbursement of expenses (within set limits) for uniforms procurred on their own, be it trousers, "roundabout" jackets, frock coats, sack coats, shoes, etc...This period had an official end date (For that you'll need to read the article).

Note: Officer's Uniforms are an entirely different story...

Please read the article, before using this term further!

http://www.military-historians.org/company/journal/confederate/confederate-1.htm

Paul B.

[coastaltrash]

Re: Jacket

Paul,
Commutation is a system, not a period in time. So rather than type "A jacket acquired during one of the several periods in which the Confederate Congress request civilian donations of clothing as well as jackets sent from the home front" I guess it's easier to type "Commutation Jacket".

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Re: Jacket

Paul,
Commutation is a system, not a period in time. So rather than type "A jacket acquired during one of the several periods in which the Confederate Congress request civilian donations of clothing as well as jackets sent from the home front" I guess it's easier to type "Commutation Jacket".

Patrick,

I understand "system" as opposed to "period"; system being the method, period being the duration:

The Confederate Quartermaster's Department was organized by Act of Congress 26 February 1861. This act, along with one passed 6 March, established the Confederate Regular Army, an organization with a paper strength of about 6,000 men. As finally organized, the Department was authorized one Quartermaster General with the rank of colonel, an Assis**tant Quartermaster General ranked as a lieutenant colonel, four Assistant Quartermasters graded as majors, and as many Assistant Quartermasters (AQMs) ranked as captains as the service might require.

The volunteers of the Provisional Army were to provide their own clothing, for the use of which the government would pay each man equivalent of the cost of clothing for an NCO or private in the Regular Army, generally $25.00 for each six months. This was the Commutation System. Initially it seems to have been intended to provide a means of clothing the troops without having to build government facilities to do it, to take advantage of the easiest way to clothe the army, and to avoid the risk of stockpiling mountains of material that might become useless surplus if there was no war.

By 8 October 1862, the issue system was considered to be strong enough that the old commutation system was officially ended. 39 Some troops, of course, had been on the issue system as early as the summer of 1861, while others did not get on it until late 1862 or early 1863. There is evidence that some troops in the west did not get off the commutation system until 1864 40 Still, in the main armies, the issue system was pretty much in place and functioning by 1863.

The issue system provided a table of allowances for spe**cific types of clothing as well as prices that were to be charged for that clothing. If the soldier underdrew the allowance, he was paid the difference. If he overdrew, the difference was taken out of his pay. Prices gradually crept upward as the war went on, but the basic allowance and prices as of October, 1862 were as follows:

It gets tiresome, when individuals cannot identify particular uniform articles, that the wild card, "Oh it must be a Commutation Jacket" is thrown in. My intent was to clarify the use of this term; either for a "System" or for a "Period".

Mr. Jenson rather extensively identifies characteristics believed to be particular to certain manufacturies, using his "rule of 3" of commonalities, the terms Richmond Depot types I, II, & III, Columbus Depot, etc...give us some hope in identifying the origins of certain uniform pieces...

Given this, just how would you identify a "Commutation Jacket"? Certainly there is some evidence to support when particular jackets, were issued during this period under this system, therefore they could be described as jackets procured with the aid of the system...but that's about it...as I don't believe you could find very many jackets from this period in time where you could apply Mr. Jenson's rational beyond this. As noted, the range of features present in these Early Eastern Jackets, or Later Western jackets is far to great to identify as being particular to a period/system/manufacture of origin.

Paul B.

[LonestarRifles]

Re: Jacket

Mr. Barnes,
Do you happen to have a scan or copy of the sketch you might be able to share? I am not familiar with the image, and I believe it would be beneficial to people if there were some visual along with the description.
-Patrick

[coastaltrash]

Re: Jacket

Paul,
Very familiar with Mr. Jensen's work and the theory of the "System" which he gives in his article (Type I, Type II or Type III). There are instances, as you well know of states issuing or manufacturing clothing for use of their own soldiers rather than to be assembled by their citizens and dispersed to the masses in the Confederate Army. Georgia in particular did this, as did North Carolina. The term "non descript shell jacket" or commutation jacket should not be used as an explanation on a garment, but as I said in my previous post- it is a broad brush to use when describing a garment not particular to any depot, designed to mimic an item sent from home, or an item acquired through either state or central Government issue during the early times in the war.

I agree that "Must be a commutation jacket" gets beat to death on this forum, about as much as ANY jacket with belt loops and epaullettes gets the "Must be a Richmond Depot II" statement.

[Andrew Kasmar]

Re: Jacket

Hi,


"Can we quit using the term Commutation Jackets!?! There's no such thing, and no such designation unless your'e coining a new catch phrase."

I in no way was trying to use the wrong term, but I thought that is what these jackets made during the commutation period were called. I got the term from several sources listed below: http://www.wwandcompany.com/comjacket.html , http://www.westernindependentgrays.o...er08/index.htm ,
http://www.westernindependentgrays.o...2007/index.htm , http://www.westernindependentgrays.o...2007/index.htm , and http://www.westernindependentgrays.org/Vicksburg/. Also, as already pointed out it is quicker to write " commutation jacket" rather then "A jacket acquired during one of the several periods in which the Confederate Congress request civilian donations of clothing as well as jackets sent from the home front" .

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Re: Jacket

Hi,


"Can we quit using the term Commutation Jackets!?! There's no such thing, and no such designation unless your'e coining a new catch phrase."

I in no way was trying to use the wrong term, but I thought that is what these jackets made during the commutation period were called. I got the term from several sources listed below: http://www.wwandcompany.com/comjacket.html , http://www.westernindependentgrays.o...er08/index.htm ,
http://www.westernindependentgrays.o...2007/index.htm , http://www.westernindependentgrays.o...2007/index.htm , and http://www.westernindependentgrays.org/Vicksburg/. Also, as already pointed out it is quicker to write " commutation jacket" rather then "A jacket acquired during one of the several periods in which the Confederate Congress request civilian donations of clothing as well as jackets sent from the home front" .

Andrew,

Vendor websites, and Online Event Regulations shouldn't be taken as research. For research, you'll want to refer to published, founded (cited) works; such as books, magazines.

With so many variations in jackets, coats...etc., being produced under the "Commutation System" it's important to define the desired features of the jackets, ie; body, trim, buttons, epaulettes...etc.

What's wrong with saying something like; "untrimmed roundabout w/ or w/o epaulettes"?

Very familiar with Mr. Jensen's work and the theory of the "System" which he gives in his article (Type I, Type II or Type III). There are instances, as you well know of states issuing or manufacturing clothing for use of their own soldiers rather than to be assembled by their citizens and dispersed to the masses in the Confederate Army. Georgia in particular did this, as did North Carolina. The term "non descript shell jacket" or commutation jacket should not be used as an explanation on a garment, but as I said in my previous post- it is a broad brush to use when describing a garment not particular to any depot, designed to mimic an item sent from home, or an item acquired through either state or central Government issue during the early times in the war.

I agree that "Must be a commutation jacket" gets beat to death on this forum, about as much as ANY jacket with belt loops and epaullettes gets the "Must be a Richmond Depot II" statement.

Patrick,

Believe it or not, I think we're in agreement...for the most part. Especially with regards to the blanket statements of jacket types...just this past weekend, I examined a 6-piece body jacket, made of Blue-Grey English Kersey...trimmed in white silk tape, and gold bullion...many people would refer to this jacket as a RD III...except that this jacket was a private purchase Officer's uniform, from Lt. Frank Littleton of the 17th VA...killed at Sharpsburg, Sept. 1862. Due to the history and oddities of this jacket, it doesn't fit the mold for a RDIII...so what is it? It's a private purchase jacket...

Paul B.

[coastaltrash]

Re: Jacket

Paul,
As I WROTE most of the guidelines, feel free to ask any questions and I will GLADLY supply names of books and references that I may have on my current PC. In writing the guidelines I used the method of saying 'commutation jacket' rather than the previous methods mentioned, and I assume Dan Wambaugh did the same in his listings.

Would be a pretty idiotic point to list a event requirement as "a jacket of gray jean, 6 piece body, 2 piece sleeve, 5 button front ONLY" etc.

English made items are a HUGE problem as well. Just because it's made out of Blue gray kersey, doesn't make it a Tait jacket, or an RDIII. The problem with most of this is simple- and my explanation for this should not be taken as an insult to some viewers. The average reenactor simply does not know how to properly write a good (300 level and up) paper of a historic context, meaning proper footnotes and references in a style other than MLA. While most of us, hopefully, read on our impressions, the myths are still out there, not just in Confederate Garments, but Federal Garments as well. Just because a jacket is trimmed in tape, it's an SA Mounted whatever jacket, etc. It's all a matter of perception of the individual I suppose.

I don't find it hard to believe you and I agree on the point, it is just often a tiresome effort to even say "Stop calling it a commutation jacket". I'm personally waiting for "Commutation trousers" to start being used. Like I said, it's a system and I understand that, does the new guy in the ranks understand that? Probably not, but it's a lot easier to say Richmond Depot II than saying a Jacket produced under the typical style of what is known as the Second Pattern Richmond Jacket. It's like getting bent out of shape when people call accoutrements 'leathers'