Richmond Depot type II

[David Fox]

I note the guidelines for the Maryland, My Maryland 150th Antietam event propose Richmond I jackets as an optional Confederate uniform and that one should add coloured tape if one has a Richmond Depot type II. As I recall, a three-part article several years ago in "Military Collector & Historian" opined production of the plain type II began in the Spring of 1862 (months before Antietam), overlapping with type I production. I recently purchased a type II off the this forum and am reluctant to set my much-put-upon wife to sewing tape to it's collar, shoulder straps, and cuffs.

Any insights, Pards?

[roundshot]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

Forget the tape. One needs only to look at Mast's " State Troops and Volunteers" to see many Tar Heels enlisted in early 1862 wearing untrimmed "Richmond" jackets. Same for some of the famous Antietam dead photo series along the Hagerstown Pike and Sunken Road. In my opinion, the early-war "tape thing" is much exaggerated.

[rmilstead]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

David,
A close read of Les Jensen's article uncovers an anomally relative to the dating of the RD2 jackets to Spring 1962 . Les uses a picture of a member (Alexander Harris) of Parker's Battery as the source for that attributation saying the picture was probably taken in the Spring when the Battery was mustered in. However, two of the pictures of RD1 jackets are also of members of Parkers Battery and also are attributed to the Spring of 1862. Now Harris was discharged in Nov 1862 definitely placing the RD2 picture into 1862 but possibly the post the Antietam timeframe. Les isn't clear about the interpretation of this. He seems to be implying that both were being produced simultaneously at the earlier date but the question then becomes were different versions of the jackets issued to different members of the Battery at the same relative timeframe. Possible but if this was when they were being mustered in it would seem a bit odd. Perhaps, however, he may have got his dating confused but I have never asked him about it. The John Blair Royal jacket clearly produced in 1863 has piped decoration on the shoulder straps and is sometimes described as a transition piece but if RD2s (ie without tape or piping) were being made a year earlier then why was it so decorated? The answer to all of this could be special orders through the Richmond Clothing Bureau (this is definitely documented at least early on). Since all of the jackets (and pictures) in question are of Artillery Battery members maybe there was some effort to specifically designate them later than they were doing for Infantry troups. No answers but the facts are definitely confusing.

Dick Milstead
Hardaway's Alabama Battery
Company of Military Historians

[Daniel]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

David I was thinking the same thing when I read the Jensen article again. The Royal jacket which was used in the spring of 1863 had red piping on the epulets but nothing on the collar. And the trimming was certainly not heavy black tape. There seems to be a lot of confusion about the early jackets.

Dan Stewart

[rmilstead]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

Dan,
No Richmond Depot Type 1 is known to exist. Jensen developed the terminology to put some reasonable order into the photographic and physical evidence. Basically as presented in his study, the Type 1 jackets are so designated to cover a group of jackets depicted in early war photographs from individuals with ANV theater connection which certainly all displayed very similar characteristics. His theory was that they represented the first examples of the uniform jackets produced by the Richmond Clothing Bureau during what was the transition period before the actual end of Commutation period. This is very reasonable. When and how the transition occured to the so called Type 2 jackets is again speculation. My comments were making two points. First the actual text of Les' article is confusing with respect to the attributation of an RD2 as early as the Spring of 1862. Second due to some factor, possibly special orders to the Bureau or branch of service considerations, the idea that when RD2 jackets started being produced service decoration such as piping stopped is clearly not true e.g. the Royal Jacket. Overall Les did the best analysis possible given the data available and the fact that it still remains the benchmark over 20 years later testifies to the strength of his work.

Dick Milstead
Hardaway's Alabama Battery
Company of Military Historians

[Secesh]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

I have studied those photos of the CS dead at Sharpsburg many times and am hard pressed to see a single kia clad in a Richmond Depot jacket, either type 1 or type 2.

[Jeff Dugdale]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

I have studied those photos of the CS dead at Sharpsburg many times and am hard pressed to see a single kia clad in a Richmond Depot jacket, either type 1 or type 2.

Take another look at the photo looking along the full length of the Hagerstown pike.The soldier whose head is nearest the camera is wearing an untrimmed RD jacket complete with epaulettes.
Jeff Dugdale

[Doughboy]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

Tom, what are you coming up with, NC jackets? Commutation system?
Thanks

[roundshot]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

Gardner's famous death studies photographs of Starke's LA Brigade along the Hagerstown Pike provide an interesting look at CS uniforms during that period of the war, including an untrimmed "Richmond" pattern shell, a Federal fatigue blouse, a Federal overcoat, and a four button jacket or coat (not necessarily in that order).

[Secesh]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

I believe that commutation jackets, frocks, and State issued garments were prevalent at Sharpsburg...

[Secesh]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

Looked again and I am sorry, but I do not see an RD jacket...what I see are tight fitting, short Comm jackets, along with a Fed sack coat, frock coat, and even a frock with tape trim on the cuff...the gents with his heads closest to the camera are both in dark colored jackets - one with a turned out breast pocket (not common to the RDs, and the other with a jacket front of apprx. 5 buttons, 2 buttoned)....

[roundshot]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

Viewed under magnification the jacket with the "turned out pocket" has, in fact, been slit with a knife probably by a looter to get to the inside pocket. If you believe the coat to be a commutation one then that's your interpretation.

Secondly, attached is a photo of Private Daniel Cox of the 46th NCT who was wounded in the thigh and captured at Antietam and never rejoined the army. The photo was taken upon enlistment (August 1862). Speaking for NC troops only, many thousands joined the ANV during the late summer of 1862. Most were conscripts. For example, the 1st and 3rd Regiment's NC State Troops each received over 400 levies before the Maryland Campaign.

Photo analysis shows that many of these fellows were outfitted by the Richmond central government like Private Cox, with plain jacket and wooden buttons. This is documented by Greg Masts "State Troops and Volunteers, Vol. I." (source of the Cox photo) and also by images to appear in his forthcoming Volume II (I am doing the uniform analysis of the new photos for Greg).

Other states may vary, but plain Richmond jackets were clearly much in use by this time.

[Secesh]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

I am merely saying that the fact the jacket has epaulettes does not automatically qualify it for an RD issue. There is also the cut of the sleeves, the piecing of the back, the linings, button fronts...all this needs to be, and was taken into consideration by Jensen, when making an arguement. The epaulette had been a feature of US military uniforms for quite some time, and both militia organizations and States patterned their uniforms after these, including epaulettes. Also, this feature would have been well known by the wives, sweethearts, sisters and friends of soldiers who may have sent jackets from home...Yes, it has epaulettes, but based on the number of individuals in the Hagerstown Turnpike pics NOT wearing an RD, and the soldier corpses that were lined up in a "V" for burial, and the dead photographed sheltering behind the limestone outcrop...the plethora of evidence states that this probably isn't an RD. The dead speak for themselves. Of course, that is my interpretation. Thanks.

[David Fox]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

Comrade Williams: Hijacking my own thread for a moment, can you keep us current on Mast's volume II? I obtained his first volume when published and, alas, am not getting any younger.

[roundshot]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

It's still a couple years out, I'm afraid. Greg's still debating how this volume is to be organized.He has amassed a ton of new images and is triaging what to use. He recently sent me a flashdrive of over a hundred "unidentifieds" for review. Some of these are simply incredible, but his problem is how to logically include them in the narrative. You may be assured it will be worth the wait when it does appear. He also has a couple other projects going at this time.