English Canteens

[Vuhginyuh]

Re: English Canteens

The only reference for SG in any of my sources is for Scots Guard. I think that was only used in conjunction with numerical unit markings on stock plates, bayonets and such. And Im not even sure if they are a mid-century Regt

[Michael McComas]

Re: English Canteens

The Scots Guards are a real regiment, but prior to the reorganization of 1881, they were the 3rd Reg't of Foot Guards. By the time they became the Scots Guards, the British were using the Italian pattern water bottle. I'm going to ask some experts on British militaria and see what shakes out.

[justthemiller]

Re: English Canteens

I'm with Ryan on this one.

I've never seen or heard of any English pattern water bottle with a definate Confederate provenance. One would think they would show up in photos of Confederate POW's and such but when you look hard enough, you will notice that the favorite Confederate canteen is a Federal one! I am not aware if the Museum of the Confederacy has any English pattern water bottles in their collections but they do have examples of Federal canteens, tin drums, Gardner, Nuchols and other patterns of Confederate canteens. And on another point, just why would Confederate purchasing agents be scouring the English countryside looking for something that could be easily supplied either locally or through captured Federal stores? It does make sense to have them look for such items not readily available as clothing, shoes, accoutrements, artillery, and rifles and rifle-muskets. But as I said before, it doesn't make much sense for them to go and look for something that their government/supply system can take care of themselves.

[packer01]

Re: English Canteens

The markings with the Broad Arrow vary depending on usage. B/|\O was in use some time after the beginning of the 19th C., though the Board of Ordnance had been around since the early 1700's. Before that, there are examples of G/|\R, possibly dating as early as the American Revolution. The Board was abolished in 1855, and from 1856 on the W/|\D marking is found, and in use through most of Queen Victoria's reign until the marking was abolished 30 Jan 1895 in List of Changes order 7815. The Broad Arrow was also used throughout the colonies as an ownership mark. For instance C/|\G is Cape Government (South Africa). I couldn't find anything on S/|\G, but the G is probably for Government. It has been suggested to me by a collector of British militaria that it may also be a contractor's initials, but I'm a little skeptical about that.

Judging from the context of the initials, my best guess about the S G marking would be that they identify property of the Storekeeper General's Department, a branch of the British Treasury which existed from 1808 to about 1821. Quick history -- During most of the 18th Century, British Army regiments were expected to provide their own camp equipage from a lump sum paid to the unit only when it was ordered onto active campaigning. The equipment was therefore the property of the regiment and generally marked (if the few documented originals allow us to make any generalizations at all!) with Regimental number, company letter, and a 'rack number' of the soldier the equipment was issued to (looking often like, for example 13 B 32 which would be soldier 32 of company B of the 13th Foot (1st Somersetshire Regiment). Often the broad arrow is also put on, and often the GR initials or GR cypher is present.
During the French Revolution the British government found that it was cheaper to buy camp equipment direct from the largest supplier (the Trotter brothers [who NEVER made/designed a wood-framed knapsack, but that's a whole other story!!!]) and issue it to units than it was to pay sums to the regiments. After some 'financial irregularities' and two Parliamentary inquiries into the dealings of the Trotter family it was decided that the Government should take over the procurement and tendering process for camp equipage but the disperse nature of the British Army meant that there was no organisation which could take over its duties (part of the reason a private company had been left in control of it in the first place!). As all expenditure of this kind had to come from the Treasury, the first thought was to dump the responsibility on the Commissariat, at that point a branch of the Treasury not the Army, and the only department familiar with the tendering and evaluation of military contracts. The Commissariat had enough to do simply finding food fuel and coal for the Army, so the Treasury created the Storekeeper General's Department to contract for camp equipage and also to warehouse, ship and disburse almost all Army property in the British Isles (later Spain and Holland).
In 1821 with the army of the Napoleonic Wars being reduced, the necessity of a separate department was not seen, and the SGD was absorbed into the Commissariat. To avoid a duplication of duties the contracting and tendering responsibilities of the Commissariat were then passed across to the Ordnance Board who were already providing those services to the units of the Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Sappers and Miners, etc. (None of whom were actually part of the Army at that point!). Because of various reforms in the British military structure in the 1853-1855 period the Army, the Board of Ordnance, and the military departments of the Treasury [primarily the Commissariat] were all amagamated into the new War Department.
Sorry to write at such length on a non-CW topic, but it seems that there is quite a bit of confusion about the departments and their responsibilities, due no doubt to how 'foreign' the structure is compared to the US experience.
It is possible that GR markings would be used up until 1830 as has already been noted in this thread, although I would expect equipment for Army use (as opposed to militia equipment) to have the SG markings from 1808 to 1821. I have never found equipment of Commissariat provenance, but following the pattern I would expect it to be a C with broad arrow. From 1825 on the BO marking would take over, depending on the type of equipment (Ordnance had been issuing some types of tents as early as 1803), with WD being used after 1855.
That being said, I don't understand why anyone is trying to reproduce British Army markings for CW repros. There are only a few original items in North America with these markings, and as far as I am aware all have their provenance questioned as to whether they were in fact used during the CW (I'm thinking primarily of the WD marked shirt which was in Military Collector and Historian a while back). I am by no means as knowledgeable about this as others and I hope someone will continue the discussion and contribute on WD or BO items they have seen and the documentation.
Very little British Army equipment was actually produced by the Army or by the government -- the vast majority was made to specifications by private companies or purchased through middlemen. The largest supplier of these types of goods to the Confederacy, S. Isaac, Campbell & Company, had no connection at all to the army or government after being banned from offering tenders for goods in 1858 because Saul Isaac gave a £500 'loan' to an army inspector. But the Isaacs still had connections to suppliers and manufacturers, so were well-placed when Confederate agents arrived. So in terms of camp equipage and similar supplies (I don't know enough about the weapon purchases to comment on them) the items would have been of the British Army pattern, but none of the items made for the Confederates would have gone through an inspection process, none would have been officially approved and none would have received the broad mark acceptance mark or any government marking.
As the Confederacy was not formally recognized by Britain, no official transactions took place directly between the government and Confederate purchasers. Quite possibly some items condemned by Britain may have been purchased by British companies to resell on to the Confederates, but the quantity of 'surplus' at that time would have been quite small, as the stable size of the army meant requirements were predictable. Also, items were not condemned simply because of a change in pattern, so most everything condemned for sale was unserviceable and sold basically as scrap.
For general information -- when an Army item was no longer considered government property, either condemned or given to the soldier on discharge, an inverted broad arrow was marked above the first one leaving a design which looked something like a six-pointed asterisk (bad ASCII drawing follows)
\|/
/|\
Anyway, I hope that this has provided some information (and opinion!) for the discussion. As an aside, as Napoleonic is my primary period I would be VERY, VERY, interested in more information about the SG canteen (artifacts from that period are really thin on the ground), and would be very happy to be contacted off-forum about this non-CW subject.

Frank Packer
fpacker@btinternet.com

[Michael McComas]

More information

After talking to Ryan, I called around and did some more research on these canteens. The following quote is from Civil War Canteens by Sylvia & O'Donnell p. 7:

Two views of a regulation British pattern wooden cantten of barrel-rim construction. This specimen is 7 1/3 inches in diameter, 3 3/4 inches in width and is painted blue. Stamped in the face is a broad arrow above the letters "SG". There are two iron bands, only two metal sling loops, a wooden spout and a wooden stopper anchored by a string attached to both loops. Specimens have been noted bearing other letters and may have the date "1854" stamped on them. The Confederacy imported an undetermined quantity of these from England. Courtesy John Graham.

That is the canteen, incidentally, that Mr. Doolin has copied. After finding that tidbit, I got on the phone and called Bill Adams, a widely regarded Civil War collector who has a particular interest in British imports. I asked, "I see these British canteens in a lot of books (particularly Davis's two books), but no one has solid documentation on them. Were they really imported for the Civil War?" Bill responded that they definitely were, and you find them in local historical societies and relic rooms throughout the South. In particular, the Warren Rifles Museum in Front Royal, VA, has a British canteen that has good CW provenance. I plan to go to Front Royal the next time I'm in Virginia and check it out. He also has copies of cargo manifests and bills of lading from blockade runners showing that wooden canteens were imported from England. Bill didn't know what "SG" was, but he did add that he's never seen one with an SG marking that was not also dated 1854. That is a little early to have anything to do with the switch from Board of Ordnance to War Department markings, and it is pre-Crimean War. SG remains puzzling.

Another British militaria collector I spoke to suggested that the canteens were made by "the Trade" on contract to some volunteer company (Britain's version of militia) and then for some reason not delivered (much like the Selden shirt), to be sold instead to the Confederacy.

[Bill]

Re: English Canteens

Another point, just why would Confederate purchasing agents be scouring the English countryside looking for something that could be easily supplied either locally or through captured Federal stores?

James,

I know this Forum hates guesswork, but I'm going to make a guess anyway! These import canteens may well have been British Government surplus. Based on the markings, the majority of the canteens we see over here, were made in 1854 or earlier. Most of them have the "Broad Arrow", which means, that unlike the Enfield Rifles, the canteens had all been government property at some time in their past. It may well have been that the price for these surplus canteens was too good to pass up. Or that some English Dealer, for the cost of a fresh coat of paint, was selling them to the Confederate Government, as new.

[justthemiller]

Re: English Canteens

Okay,

Let's say for the sake of argument that there was a Confederate purchasing agent who bought into the idea that Confederate soldiers need a high-speed, blue-painted wood canteen (insert SUCKER here). And that several runners made it through the blockade loaded to the gills with British pattern water bottles. Just how many would have made it into the hands of the average Confederate soldier in the field? Just how common were these items? I know of no period references to them and I know of no photos of soldiers carrying them. In my mind these items are not common enough to be carried by your average living historian in the field. My fear is that these items will be the latest in a long line of reenactor fads that crop up from time to time. You'll see dozens of folks sporting these items but when querried as to their provenance, they will not be able to come up with a decent answer. Now, there are almost no absolutes when it comes to this so I am sure that there is some period reference, painting or photo lurking out there somewhere to shoot down my theory on this. But I would rather hear a living historian be able to explain an odd piece of kit by saying "the original was carried by so-and-so" other than "they carried them all the time"!

[marlin teat]

Re: English Canteens

Is it possible that these water bottles were imported pre-war by the individual militia companies at their own expense? If so, they would not show up in quartermaster records and many would have been sent home as personal property when replaced by government issue. This may explain why there are so many in local museums.


From the minutes of the Rome Light Guards, May 10th, 1860:

"Resolved, first, That the merchants and mechanics of this city and county be requested to patronize Southern manufacturers, Southern markets, and direct importations to Southern ports, to the exclusion of all others.

Resolved, second, That in the purchase of our dry goods, groceries, hardware, and military merchandise the Rome Light Guards will support and sustain those who comply with the foregoing resolutions."

[packer01]

Re: More information

Another British militaria collector I spoke to suggested that the canteens were made by "the Trade" on contract to some volunteer company (Britain's version of militia) and then for some reason not delivered (much like the Selden shirt), to be sold instead to the Confederacy.

If this is the explanation presently doing the rounds it is extremely unsatisfying on many levels. As Rifle Volunteer units were not formed until 1859 and these canteens are mostly marked pre-1855 there is an immediate problem with the statement. The broad arrow is a mark put on by an authorized government inspector which notes both the fitness of the item and that it is government property (which is why the mark was defaced when the item stopped being government property). If these canteens were not delivered they would not have been inspected and would not therefore have been marked with a broad arrow -- and as these staved-barrel canteens had to be inspected while unpainted (as contractors tended to hide unseasoned and unsuitable wood and poor joints under a heavy coat of paint) the canteens would have been unpainted as well as unmarked.

Britain's version of the militia was called the Militia, but camp equipage was not part of their standard equipment, only issued for field days or exercises. (The Canadian Militia was caught short when it was mobilized 'en masse' for the Fenian scare in 1866, many militia battallions only having about a company's worth of camp equipment, the equipment being issued to whichever company was being exercised or inspected at the time.) So it would be extremely unlikely (but not impossible) that a militia unit would be ordering its own camp equipment when regulation equipment would be issued on those few occurances when it was necessary.

So, in order for the explanation to be viable we would have to take, on faith, that the Board of Ordnance decided that it required an extra hundred or so (Volunteer units were not formed into battallion-strength units until 1860) canteens for some unknown and unformed unit which didn't really need them and made a specific contract for these. The canteens were then inspected, marked in several different ways (some SG, some BO, some dated, some not), painted, and paid for (contracts bind both ways). It was then apparently decided that an army of 150,000 men could not absorb an extra one hundred regulation canteens and they were handed back to the contractor with the defacing of the broad arrow accidentally overlooked. The contractor then held onto them for some seven years (1854-1861) before selling them on to a Confederate agent. The Confederates then shipped these one hundred canteens through the blockade, where they were dispersed to soldiers in several different regiments who all scrupulously avoided capture throughout the war. (The Northern government was looking for any opportunity to embarass Britain over its professed 'neutrality' -- I don't believe the capture of armed insurgents using British government property and the resulting chance to raise the spectre of British 'mercenaries' would have been passed up). As the Selden shirt is marked WD (if I remember) and the canteens are not, we are also asked to believe that this entire sequence happened once before 1855 with the canteens and once again after with shirts.

As incredible as this series of events is, I will be the first to state that it is not impossible that all of this happened. But when the choice is between the usual, the likely, and the regular against the unusual, unlikely and irregular the burden of documentation and proof must always lie with the more improbable explanation. As has already been stated by others, there seems to be a distinct lack of any type of corroborating paperwork in first-person accounts, prisoner reports, etc., of this distinctive item; and when one also takes into account that any British artifact pretty much quadruples in value when it becomes a Confederate artifact I think we have a duty both as historians and as re-enactors to be especially cautious that evidence is actually evidence and not vague myth.

Although I have only come across an account of canteen straps being purchased in Britain and not the actual canteens, I have no reason to doubt that some might have been. Caleb Huse spent gold and cotton quite freely throughout Europe, and as unneccesary as British-made canteens may have been, he may have been induced to splurge on them (he was using part of the kick-backs he received from S. Isaac, Campbell & Company to buy a reference library for the Confederate Ordnance department for £1500, so a pattern of behaviour of spending on the less-than-practical is there). But these items would have been made by private manufacturers and never submitted to government inspection and therefore would not have been marked with the broad arrow nor most likely painted. In this case the unmarked British-made canteens would most likely have been virtually indistinguishable from similar domestically-produced ones.

In short, the unlikely prospect of these being the canteens purchased in Britain, the lack of apparent provenance and period references, and the insignificant quantity involved compared to the total number of canteens issued/used by the Confederate armies would appear to work against these items having any place in a Confederate impression. But I think we have to be resigned to the fact that people who wish to have and use one of these marked canteens will use them regardless.

Frank Packer
fpacker@btinternet.com

[Michael McComas]

Re: More information

The theory that the Broad Arrow was always and universally defaced for sold out of service items is almost as cherished a myth as that of the barefoot Confederate. I can reach into my closet and pull out half a dozen items, including arms and bayonets, which still bear the Broad Arrow and are not double-struck. The British were diligent about marking their rifles and blades when sold, and if I have several that are still "crown property", I'm not at all surprised that a contractor-made shirt or several crates of surplus canteens would escape a second pass of the stamp. There's enough room between "supposed to" and "got around to" to sail a schooner through.

Another thing to consider is that the items under discussion date from the mid- to late-1850's, when Britain armed like crazy for what they thought was going to be a protracted clash of empires in the Crimea. The fact that the canteens are dated 1854--the first year of the Crimean War--and the Selden shirt is dated 1859--when the Army would likely still have been swimming in surplus--says to me that it was either surplus to needs from the time of delivery, or from a contract that was filled after the need for it had lapsed, or was contracted for as a political favor. We know from our experience in the Americas that all three happen in time of war.

Several of the people who have spoken against this particular item's use have done so starting from the standpoint of "common sense says..." and ordinarily I would be inclined to agree. Why buy canteens from Britain? Why buy cotton shirts from Britain? Why buy anything from overseas that could be made here, including accoutrements? You'd have to look at the manufacturing capability at the time vs. the need. If you need 100,000 canteens, and you have 30,000 on hand and can make 10,000 a month domestically, or get 20,000 on a ship in a month, why would you not buy them? Especially if you're paying with cotton bonds which are worthless if you lose the war?

This country is literally awash in British accoutrements from Canada and the other colonies, which if taken together would be enough to accouter the entire ANV twice over. In this case, though, we have a respected reference and an original artifact, and a change of pattern which fairly well precludes these canteens from being post-war manufacture. If someone can speak to inaccuracies in Sylvia & O'Donnell or authoritatively attack the provenance of the canteen in the Warren Rifles museum, I will change my mind on the subject. I consider the jury still out, but the available evidence leans in their favor.

[RyanBWeddle]

Re: More information

3rd Reg't of Foot (East Kent) Piling Arms in the Crimea

Check out those canteens!

Courtesy LoC

[Sam Doolin]

Re: More information

3rd Reg't of Foot (East Kent) Piling Arms in the Crimea

Check out those canteens!

Courtesy LoC

Imagine advancing at the double quick with that thing flailing away at you. Worn at the height shown in the photo, perhaps the worst damage would be a bruised arse. Any higher and we're talking broken ribs. Made of oak and full of water ( approx. 52 oz give or take ) these water bottles weighed 5 1/2 to 6 pounds !

Sam Doolin

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: English Canteens

Didnt the British army use some sort of a tin canteen along side wooden canteens?

[Michael McComas]

Re: English Canteens

Robert,

In a typically British fashion, they called their mess tins 'canteens', so you will see equipment lists with both 'canteen, tin' and 'water bottle, wooden' next to each other. Two countries separated by a common language, indeed.

That's the short answer. I'll be happy to send you the brief history of metal water bottles in British service if you like. The first general issue was in 1888 for the Slade Wallace valise equipment, but Canadian battalions were provisioning themselves with sheet metal canteens from the 1866 Fenian raids onward.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: English Canteens

Robert,

In a typically British fashion, they called their mess tins 'canteens', so you will see equipment lists with both 'canteen, tin' and 'water bottle, wooden' next to each other. Two countries separated by a common language, indeed.

That's the short answer. I'll be happy to send you the brief history of metal water bottles in British service if you like. The first general issue was in 1888 for the Slade Wallace valise equipment, but Canadian battalions were provisioning themselves with sheet metal canteens from the 1866 Fenian raids onward.

That would be very much apreciated. keepnhoakalive@yahoo.com