Frock Coats vs. Sack Coats for USCT's

[Shane Williams]

My former first Sgt. is reforming our company that died a few years ago. He is very knowledgeable in proper drilling, giving commands and the execution of said commands. But as far as uniform issuing and who is selling top quality uniforms, he isn't as knowledgeable. He was told that all USCT were issued frock coats because there was a surplus of them due to the fact that white troops did not like them and that the only ways that the USCT would have worn sack coats were through private purchase or if the frock was worn out and cut down. I myself have dug into proper uniforms for my various impressions so I no this isn't entirely true. I have seen many photos of USCT in sack coats and many photos of white troops in frocks. I would like to find the records of what my unit was issued to present it to him so our unit can wear what we are supposed to and when.

Welcome to the forum, Mr. Williams. A cardinal rule of the forum is that all members must sign their posts with their full name. - Silas Tackitt, one of the moderators

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Frock Coats vs. Sack Coats for USCT's

My former first Sgt. is reforming our company that died a few years ago. He is very knowledgeable in proper drilling, giving commands and the execution of said commands. But as far as uniform issuing and who is selling top quality uniforms, he isn't as knowledgeable. He was told that all USCT were issued frock coats because there was a surplus of them due to the fact that white troops did not like them and that the only ways that the USCT would have worn sack coats were through private purchase or if the frock was worn out and cut down. I myself have dug into proper uniforms for my various impressions so I no this isn't entirely true. I have seen many photos of USCT in sack coats and many photos of white troops in frocks. I would like to find the records of what my unit was issued to present it to him so our unit can wear what we are supposed to and when.

This is an interesting question. You might find references to the actual clothing issued to your regiment in several sources, including personal diaries and letters, and the letter and order books of the particular regiment you portray, which latter should be in the National Archives. Which regiment is it, by the way? A search on Google Books or Cornell University's "Making of America" site could turn something up in ORs, or in a memoir or regimental history.

For two reasons I suspect that your sergeant may be mistaken about frock coats. First, by the time recruitment for the USCT got well underway, the Quartermaster Department had ramped up clothing production enough to produce surpluses in most everything, so there would have been no need to foist frock coats off on black troops to save sack coats for whites.

To illustrate, Series III, Volume 4 of the ORs, on pp. 886-887, lists both the number of principal clothing and camp and garrison equipage items issued during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1864, as well as those remaining on hand at the end of that period.

The number of coats, jackets, and blouses issued came to, respectively, 218,000, 635,655, and 2,099,684. During this period the U.S. Army had about 850-900,000 men in the field (based on Livermore). More coats were issued than men who served in the USCT, and three times as many coats, jackets, or blouses as men in the army. While many would have been worn out in service, the numbers on hand at the end of the year came to 351,152 coats, 220,796 jackets, and 530,701 blouses.

Interestingly, these numbers do show a certain reluctance to draw coats rather than jackets or blouses. Only 40% of available coats were drawn, vs. about 80% of available blouses. So far then, your sergeant has a point. Still, as you state, plenty of photographic evidence exists to show frock coats on white troops and sack coats on blacks. There's no basis I know of for thinking race had anything to do with it. In fact, the government continued to both issue and procure additional frock coats, and by the end of the war the surplus had risen to more than 400,000 (ORs, Series III, Vol. 5, p. 278)

Part of the reason for the reluctance to draw frock coats might have been cost -- during this same period uniform coats cost $7.00 vs. $3.12 for a lined blouse and $2.35 for an unlined one (G.O. 364, November 12, 1863). The government didn't just give these clothes away. The cost came from the clothing allowances and pay of the men.

This brings us to the second reason I think your sergeant may be mistaken. For much of this time the pay of the USCT was unfairly held to $10 a month, with $3 deducted for clothing. They did not receive the full pay to which they were entitled (for a private, $13 a month PLUS $3.50 clothing allowance up to the spring of 1864; $16 pay and $4 clothing thereafter) until, I think, towards the end of 1864, and even then it was restricted to men who were free at the beginning of the war (I base this on a quick glance at Higginson's book).

Simply put, the soldiers of the USCT were harder pressed to pay for their clothes than white troops. Not only would they have had even more personal incentive to draw blouses instead of coats, but once you add in all the other clothing expenses they faced, the quartermasters could very well have lost money by making the troops take items they couldn't pay for.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: Frock Coats vs. Sack Coats for USCT's

Now I have seen a few photos of USCT troops wearing other types of garments, but the vast majority are seen wearing dress coats.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Frock Coats vs. Sack Coats for USCT's

I think the photos break fairly evenly on the LOC site. Here are a few that show either sack coats or a combination. The camp photo is pretty fuzzy, but I believe it shows a couple enlisted men in sacks toward the right. The Fort Slocum photo focuses on officers, but there seem to be a couple of enlisted personnel in sacks in the background, though they could be servants:

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/cwp/item/cwp2003004888/PP/

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/cwp/item/cwp2003004849/PP/

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/cwp/item/2004673345/

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collecti...2003000948/PP/

[Shockoe Hill Cats]

Re: Frock Coats vs. Sack Coats for USCT's

Check out Company E, 4th USCT at Fort Lincoln (LC-DIG-cwpb-04294):

In total, there are twenty-seven men present (all of whom are visible). Rank structure of the front is (left to right):
First sergeant/ corporal/ sergeant/ corporal/ private (3)/ corporal/ private (5)/ corporal/ camp attendant

Two are wearing short jackets (both are NCOs), the rest are visibly and presumable wearing frocks. Only the #2 guy and the camp attendant are without shoulder scales. In the front rank, eleven have cartridge box belts (five with the breast plates, six without) and two do not.

You may have also noticed the abundance of rings. The sergeants, one corporal, and three privates have pinky rings on their left hand. Two wear rings on the left ring finger. Records indicate that half of the 4th were free, half slave. So, that may be an interesting indication of marriage laws for African-Americans.

Cool figures=

27 men in total
(front rank)
2 sergeants
4 corporals
8 privates
1 camp attendant

2 short jackets
25 dress frocks
25 pairs of shoulder scales/ 2 without
(front rank)
11 cartridge box belts/ 2 without
5 breast plates/ 6 without

6 pinky rings
2 wedding bands

The 4th USCT would go on to fight at New Market Heights and the attack on Fort Harrison during the Bermuda Hundred and Richmond-Petersburg Campaign 1864; the first Union troops to enter Richmond in April 1865.

[Shockoe Hill Cats]

Re: Frock Coats vs. Sack Coats for USCT's

Now, contrast that photo to black soldiers of the same corps at Fort Harrison (Fort Burnham) in October 1864 (LC-DIG-cwpb-01950):

Most appear to be wearing blouses, at least, for fatigue duty.

[rbruno]

Re: Frock Coats vs. Sack Coats for USCT's

Jason,
Does the guy on the far right in the picture you last posted have on a pair of spurs? It almost looks like he is wearing spurs. The guy on the far left can be seen with infantry equipment, ie bayonet scabbard. I wonder if the guy is sitting on hitching rail for horses at the fort and what these soldiers's duties were. Would their role or duty have any impact on a sack coat vs. a frock?

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Frock Coats vs. Sack Coats for USCT's

Jason, thanks for sharing those. I think the contrast between the Fort Lincoln and Fort Harrison photos also establish the importance of context. The latter photo shows troops during the war; according to theWiki page for the 4th USCT, the Fort Lincoln photo was taken in November 1865, when the unit was in garrison (and after that whole nasty pay issue was settled): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Uni...antry_Regiment

This blog has a little more info on the negative and a pretty neat discussion of a great photograph: http://deadconfederates.wordpress.co...ergeant-henry/

[Coatsy]

Re: Frock Coats vs. Sack Coats for USCT's

Schnapps, That is a great link to the 4th USCT link. I don't want to get too far off topic here, but the Henry brothers discussion is stellar. Again great link. Back to the garrison vs field uniform conversation

[Canton Zouave]

Re: Frock Coats vs. Sack Coats for USCT's

http://www.ohiocivilwar150.org/omeka/items/show/1802

Bigger Image from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:127th_Ohio_Volunteer_Infantry.jpg

Here is a link to the 127th OVI image from the Ohio Historical Society. Shows them in Delaware, Ohio. It appears that this company is wearing Fatigue Blouses.

If you are doing the 127th OVI AKA: 5th USCT then there should be some local information as well. As you may know, the 1st Sgt. from Co. I, was Robert Pinn, recipient of the Medal of Honor. He was from Perry Township, and is most commonly associated with Massillon.
Contact Chris Craft at the Massillon Museum....he knows more about what lies in Stark County Museums than any else I know.

McKinley Museum, I can tell you for sure has very little on the 5th. You may however, find some genealogy folders related to former members that may give you some idea. In addition, go read the Stark County Democrat and the Ohio Repository at the Stark County Library. They are both a wealth of information when it comes to camp life, uniforms descriptions, and general comments about life in the army. Late 63-64 may lead you to some more sources.

You may want to see if you can get your hand on "Eagles on Their Buttons: A Black Infantry Regiment in the Civil War" which is a Regimental History of the 5th USCT.

I honestly think the image from Sandusky St. in Delaware Ohio really answers your question though....or at least helps for one company.

[Mgreer]

Re: Frock Coats vs. Sack Coats for USCT's

USCT had all the same uniforms white units did. The only way to really tell if they wore frocks, fatigue, or shell jackets are to pull the quarter master report, journals, unit histories, ect.

[Canton Zouave]

Re: Frock Coats vs. Sack Coats for USCT's

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.36454/

Unfortunately it is an unidentified Soldier and his family, but a nice image from the LOC.

[jake.koch]

Re: Frock Coats vs. Sack Coats for USCT's

Would it be possible that the commanders of some of the various U.S.C.T. units, despite the fact their men recieved less pay, would have purposely made sure that their men were dressed as close to the regs as possible (i.e. Dress Coats) due to the fact that it would present the smartest military appearance? Remember there were many whites within the Union army that fought tooth and nail against even allowing these men in uniform, much less bearing arms and going into combat. Any way their officers could present these men in the most orderly way was readily taken advantage of, from promotion of battlefield deeds to appearance in camp. I don't think they should be viewed in the same light as white troops, which is unfair, but there is certainly more to their story than what first meets the eye in matters such as this.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Frock Coats vs. Sack Coats for USCT's

Would it be possible that the commanders of some of the various U.S.C.T. units, despite the fact their men recieved less pay, would have purposely made sure that their men were dressed as close to the regs as possible (i.e. Dress Coats) due to the fact that it would present the smartest military appearance? Remember there were many whites within the Union army that fought tooth and nail against even allowing these men in uniform, much less bearing arms and going into combat. Any way their officers could present these men in the most orderly way was readily taken advantage of, from promotion of battlefield deeds to appearance in camp. I don't think they should be viewed in the same light as white troops, which is unfair, but there is certainly more to their story than what first meets the eye in matters such as this.

Yes, commanders could have ordered their men to draw specific items to enhance their soldierly appearance. William Armstrong's wartime book Red Tape and Pigeon-Hole Generals documents the "frock coat mutiny" that resulted when a 9 month volunteer regiment (the 129th PVI) in A. A. Humphreys' division tried to refuse to draw uniform coats a few weeks before the end of their enlistment. The coats would set them back half a month's pay just as they'd balanced their clothing accounts. After Humphreys initiated court martial proceedings against the field officers, the volunteers drew the coats.

So it's possible, but the 129th PVI at least had their full pay available.

It's also possible that the commanders could help their men out -- W. S. Lincoln's book on the 34th Mass. documents the purchase of white gloves and other items from the regimental fund, which in their case was augmented by a tithe on the officers.

But I don't know that this happened with the USCT -- I've read of regiments whose officers refused to draw their pay until their men received justice, but not cases where they paid for uniforms from their own pocket. It would have taken most or all of a captain's pay for a year to buy frock coats for a company, and I don't think that many were independently wealthy.

But this isn't to say it didn't or couldn't happen. It could happen, and the most certain way to discover that it did would be for me to claim it didn't ever. :)

[Mgreer]

Re: Frock Coats vs. Sack Coats for USCT's

It would have taken most or all of a captain's pay for a year to buy frock coats for a company, and I don't think that many were independently wealthy.

A large group of officers in USCT regiments, especially from New England, came from some of the wealthiest families in the nation. The best example is Robert Gould Shaw they talks about his parents wealth in this article http://danielharper.org/yauu/2011/07...gious-patriot/

or http://www.cwbr.com/index.php?q=1447...&Submit=Search

so it is not unlikely that the wealthy officers or states governments outfitted Units.