Pewter button myth

[JimKindred]

Over the past few years I have broached questions to a number of respected historical clothing makers in reference to the four hole pewter trouser buttons favored by so many of the mainstream sutlers. So far none of those I have spoken with have been able to document such a button. I know from my own experience I have yet to see one in a relic book, archeological study or in a museum collection. From my early days in hobby beginning in the 1970’s I remember seeing these buttons on reproduction haversacks, trousers and shelter halves but never on an original item. My personal feeling on this is that these buttons have been supplied so long by sutlers in this hobby that they have taken on a life of their own and are nothing more than a reenactor myth.

If anyone has information that will prove these buttons actually existed during the period and were used as we see them now in the hobby I will more than welcome the information. What I am looking for is documentation not speculation.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Pewter button myth

So far none of those I have spoken with have been able to document such a button. I know from my own experience I have yet to see one in a relic book, archeological study or in a museum collection.

Here's what I've got. There's a pair of twill-weave linen trousers in the Ohio Historical Society clothing collection, in Columbus Ohio, that were supposedly worn by John Brown (the John Brown). They were in storage in the 1990s but I got to see and handle them when looking at original civilian trousers at that time.

Here's the online data about them:

Date: 1857 circa

Provenance: Mr. and Mrs. T. B. Alexander of Put-in-Bay, Ohio, donated this pair of pants in 1919. The pants are said to have been worn by John Brown Sr. of Kansas at the Battle of Black Jack, Kansas. Mrs. T. B. Alexander, Edith Brown Alexander, was the granddaughter of the abolitionist John Brown Sr.

Location Shelving Call# Status
OHS Museum Historical Personal Artifacts H 21016 Ask at desk

The trousers looked original, in good condition (not patched or altered) and were all hand sewn.

All the buttons were 5/8" diameter buttons, identical to the sutler pewter ones. My notes say "5/8" dia buttons metal" with a little drawing of the buttons having four holes and a raised rim. I remember them distinctly because the curator was talking about the difficulty of reproducing period clothing and said, "For example, I don't know where you'd ever find buttons like these." I said, "Um, actually, I have some sitting on my desk right now." :)

The trousers didn't appear to have been repaired or resewn or otherwise altered, though of course it's always possible someone added the buttons later.

Hank Trent
(who just sold a pair of linen trowsers with metal buttons on the forums here, though the pattern was based on the Eli Jay pants at OHS)
hanktrent@voyager.net

[JimKindred]

Re: Pewter button myth

Hank,

Thanks. I guess I should have more clear in my original post, I was looking for a military application. Most people buy these from me for shelter half buttons and military trouser buttons and that is mainly the area I was looking for documentation.

[roundshot]

Re: Pewter button myth

Bulletin No. 1 published by the Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties in 1970 contains an excellent article on artifacts recovered from Ft. Pierce of the Seminole War era (and later). It contains many excellent illustrations, one of which is attached. Quoting from the article itself: " The collection also contained a number of mold type, white metal, four-hole buttons in four sizes (Fig.7, j-m). Butttons of this type were used by all services from 1812 through the 1860's primarily on trousers, but they were also popular among civilians." You can see the specimens mentioned in the illustration below.

I'm not supporting pewter buttons for use on CW trousers. But neither are they impositions according to the archaeological record.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Re: Pewter button myth

I was going to post something similiar to Mr. Williams above. Down here in Florida I've viewed dozens of pewter trouser buttons, but the problem with dug buttons down here is that even Civil War sites (forts, garrisons, etc) were utilized from the 1820's through the Civil War, and pewter utility buttons, unifom buttons, etc were quite prevelant for the post 1812 era, through the Seminole Wars, and into the Mexican War. Like you, I haven't found anything that definitely points to the military use of them specifically in the Civil War. I will also go to say that I've never seen any dug 4 hole trouser buttons here in Florida that were perfectly round with the rim around it like most sutlers sell today. Most of them were thin, slightly concave, and not always perfectly round.

[Bummer]

Re: Pewter button myth

I have several dug four hole pewter buttons like # J and K in the illustration posted above. I believe they are just early trouser buttons, and they definitely existed. I have never seen a one like the sutlers carry that have the sharply raised rim like a tin or bone one has, the kind you usually see on repro 'sutler rack' pants.
If I were to use pewter buttons I'd go with the above illustrated ones rather than the sutler row ones--and only on very early war stuff.
Steve Osman of Ft. Snelling, Minn. reproduced these correct ones some years ago from some of their samples, but I don't know whether they are still available anymore or not.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Re: Pewter button myth

I believe Osmans have sold out of those buttons, as I used to buy from them for 1830's projects, but Jarnigans had a good reproduction of them last year when I went to their retail store. Once again, I can't espouse them for CW use, but they are excellent for Seminole War and before as I use them.

[JimKindred]

Re: Pewter button myth

Let's take this discussion a notch higher, any evidence of the US Army contracting to have these buttons used on trousers or shelter halfs during the 1860-1865 time frame?

What we are looking for here is a paper trail showing these buttons were required by US Army contract.

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Pewter button myth

Can I toss a question out there?....Why do they call them "pewter"?

I am not a metalurgist and I may be way off base here but in reference to my study of Confederate saddlery hardware I note that in general, escutcheon plates and pommel shields were made of brass or zinc. It is my understanding that the principle components of brass are both copper and zinc. The most common method for making brass is by melting zinc, charcoal and copper in crucibles. Different grades of brass are made by varying the proportions of copper and zinc. Red brass contains four parts copper to one part zinc while the more common “yellow brass” is two parts copper to one part zinc. The molten metal is then cast into bars or ingots, which are again melted and recast to further purify the metal. Brass castings for saddlery hardware, or for any use, are made by pouring the molten brass into molds made of sand. Sheet brass used in saddle mountings were made by rolling the refined ingots to the desired thicknesses using huge rollers at specially designed brass works.
In the South, sufficient quantities of zinc were mined in Virginia then smelted at the huge Confederate smelting works and Laboratory at Petersburg throughout the War, however copper was notoriously short. Brass foundries, then as now, typically employ a two to one ratio of copper and zinc to make a fine yellow brass and a three to one ratio to make sheet brass. Widely varying amounts of copper and zinc appears to have been very common in the manufacture of Confederate mortice plates though some made of pure zinc were quite routinely made, probably as an expedient when copper was less available, which was often the case. Mortice plates made with high concentrations of bluish silver colored zinc can be easily identified by their rust covering (when excavated), as compared to the smooth green patina which coats a predominantly brass plate.
Pewter plates are also sometimes found at war-time sites though they are comparatively rare. Pewter requires a four to one ratio of lead and tin as its principle components. In the Confederacy, tin was rare and often had to be imported while lead had other, more obvious uses. Pewter plates, when excavated can be distinguished from those made of zinc by their creamy white or yellow color caused by the oxidation of the high lead concentrations (just as with bullets). I also note that pewter is a rather soft metal while zinc is hard.
So, my question is whether "pewter" is the correct word when we are talking about the silverish/blue buttons in questions. Maybe they were more "zinc" than pewter? Has anybody ever looked into this?
Like I said, I am not a metallurgist so help me....am I "all wet" here?

Ken R Knopp

[J.H.Berger]

Re: Pewter button myth

Bulletin No. 1 published by the Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties in 1970 contains an excellent article on artifacts recovered from Ft. Pierce of the Seminole War era (and later). It contains many excellent illustrations, one of which is attached. Quoting from the article itself: " The collection also contained a number of mold type, white metal, four-hole buttons in four sizes (Fig.7, j-m). Butttons of this type were used by all services from 1812 through the 1860's primarily on trousers, but they were also popular among civilians." You can see the specimens mentioned in the illustration below.

I'm not supporting pewter buttons for use on CW trousers. But neither are they impositions according to the archaeological record.

Comtrades,
I might be erring especially as in teh English language the words for petwer tin and tinplate are almost interchangeable but isn't "white metal" tin plated iron?

[J.H.Berger]

Re: Pewter button myth

Ken, the question raised by Jim was about the pewter buttons( as you stated correctly is a tin-lead alloy) not the zinc buttons as you find them on late war shelter halves for example.
I can only tell from pictures yet but I have the feeling that originally the repro pewter buttons were copied from an original tin button. The shape of it suggests that.

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Pewter button myth

Thank you Jan,

Sorry, I should have been more clear in my post. My point was directed more at original Confederate, so-called, "pewter" buttons such as the "I" button not the reproductions. Relic hunters, historians and others call them pewter but I question whether they were made more of zinc and therefore are not rightfully pewter at all.
Again, not knowing anything about this I merely raise the question. Others may have more knowledge and can provide clarification. Thank you.

Ken R Knopp

[JimKindred]

Let me steer this thread back on course one more time, we are not discussing Confederate use of pewter or metal buttons, strictly United States Army use of these buttons from 1860-1865. In particular their use on trousers and shelter halves.

Jim Kindred

Dulce Bellum Inexpertis

[Bummer]

Re: Pewter button myth

I think Steve Osman would be the one to answer that as they have a great timeline on stuff used at Ft. Snelling since the beginning, which would certainly tell us what the army was using when.

As I mentioned, I have some original dug ones and have seen others, so I would have to assume they were out there somewhere. But let's say (as I believe) they are 1820-30's military pants buttons. That would leave only old pre-war militia stuff or maybe some CSA source (again pre-war militia) as the source for them appearing out there. Either case, not a very typical button to be found on Civil War sites, particualrly mid and late war suites.

Yes, they were there--they've been dug, but how many, how common? I am not a digger, but someone like Jim Mayo will most likely tell you that hardly any have ever been found on CW sites. I believe he digs mostly later war Petersburg sites (sorry if I'm wrong), and I'd bet he doesn't know of a single one dug around those later war sites. Jim can you shed some light as to what's been dug? I do know that I haven't seen them in the digger's junk button bins at the relic shows (I don't dig but I do buy).

Now of course we're talking here about the correct dished ones in the picture posted before, NOT the sutler usual rimmed ones that look like the regular tin ones.

[W. K. Osman]

Re: Pewter button myth

Well, it sure does not pay to do a search for one's own name on the AC! The post by my old pard Spence Waldron [still fondly remember a Fort Benjamin Harrison event with Sherman's Bummers nearly 40 years ago!] led to a serious dig into my National Archives files.
The "pewter four hole button" was known originally as the large deadeye button and was used on cotton drilling service and fatigue trousers and for the four suspender buttons on the kersey winter service trousers. (The looped US was used for the six fasteners on the fall.) It was commonly called the suspender button for the rest of its service live. I have heard that it dates back to the 1812 era, but only see serious orders starting in the 1820s. We have found hundreds at Fort Snelling. A smaller version was used in pairs inside the cuffs of dragoon trousers to hold a detachable foot strap, and may have been used as a shirt button for a short time in the 1830s.
It is not actually made of pewter, a high tin content metal, but rather of semi-medal which intermixed cheaper materials. William Pinchin in Philadelphia was one of the largest producers for Schuylkill Arsenal.
The pewter four hole went out of service around 1856. I base this on notes taken in Box 19 of the Coxe-Irvine Papers (NARA, RG92, Entry 2118). On July 10, 1856 some 1650 gross (1415 pounds) of haversack buttons in the Arsenal went to the auctioneers. This of course nicely dates the final demise of the three button front unpainted drilling haversack; the Arsenal had been painting and strapping haversacks for the previous few years, but that is another long and very complicated story! During the same year, 1856, the remaining white metal buttons went back to Pinchin, according to my notes. That being said, the 1858 Danish Exchange trousers should probably have sheet iron buttons. Anyone have closeup photos?
Some 30 years ago we (the First Minnesota, et al) began using the pewter four hole buttons on our Civil War trousers. FROM THE FRONT they looked identical to the sheet iron buttons on original war dated trousers, and there were simply no alternatives short of trying to find original buttons. Plus, we had a good steady supply from the folks who made them for Fort Snelling. We also put them on our shelter tents for the same reason.
Over several decades of examining original Civil War garments and tentage, I have never seen the pewter four hole buttons used. Nor am I aware of any being found in campsites occupied during the war by Federal troops. But again, they looked perfect from the front, and were a far cry better than any alternatives. Now that proper, or at least acceptable, paper backed sheet iron buttons are available there is no reason to use the cast buttons, and we have not done so for several years.
It is not surprising that sutlers copied the four hole button and began using it. But like so many sutler offered items, they become the "standard" and the "research source" for those who cannot take the time to check the primary sources.
There is simply no evidence that cast white metal buttons were issued by the Federal government after 1856.
Stephen Osman