Richmond Depot type II

[FloridaConscript]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

Bob,
That is an awesome image. A great snapshot of what the RCB was turning out in the summer of 62. Is it just me or is his top burton brass?

[roundshot]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

It's wood. The glare makes it seems otherwise.

[Secesh]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

Out of curiosity, what specifically states that the jacket worn by the soldier in the image is a RD issue? Again, I see only epaulettes...other details such as belt loops, lining, etc. are indistinct...North Carolina issued her own uniforms which resembled RD jackets....Could this not be a State issue garment?

[Doughboy]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

The top button is different from the rest. Hard to say if they are wood or hard rubber

[FloridaConscript]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

Tom,

I'd say NC jackets were pretty distinct from RCB jackets. NC jackets tended to be 6 button fronts, 4 piece body and one piece sleeve. RCB jackets were were 9 button fronts 6 piece body and 2 piece sleeves. 5 buttons are visible in this image which is from mid chest up. While it is possible there are only 5 buttons on this garment, I highly doubt it. Everything that is visible in the above image points to RCB manufacture. Even if it was a privately purchased jacket, the tailor could have used a pattern similar to the ones used by the RCB. Tailors at CS gov't QM shops did not invent wildly different patterns. A 6 piece shell jacket is a 6 piece shell jacket. Lining for most production CS garments has always been an osnaburg or cotton sheeting. Do you know of any CS QM jackets that had a different lining?
The more I learn and research and discover, there are fewer and fewer hard and fast rules I believe in when it comes to material culture. Take Jim Schreufer's recent article on wooden buttons. The RCB was contracting for literally millions of coat sized buttons but they have been drastically underrated. Thanks to Jims research, some hi res Rose farm photos, and some surviving originals showing up, wood buttons should be very common on our repro jackets. And don't even get me started on the presence of English cloth in the ANV.

[Jim S]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

I'd like to add that the records of the 1st Louisiana of Starke's Brigade show them drawing CS Q.M. clothing as of August '62, including a bunch of jackets, so there were Richmonds in the brigade at Sharpsburg.

Here are the jackets on the Hagerstown Pike dead everyone's referring to:



That pic shows the man on the left with the shoulder tabs, and two men in the right foreground wearing jackets of the same shade with the button holes very close together.



And this one shows the Sergeant (note the chevrons). The left breast has clearly been cut open to get at his inside pocket contents. It's interesting that the only possible Richmonds among these dead are all lying together. The rest of the bodies show no uniformity. Heck, at least three are wearing greatcoats.

[Secesh]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

True, all true...the point I am trying to make is that, unless specific irrefutable details are in view in an image, it is not "iron clad" that it is an RD...it could be a private purchase, tailor copy, similar Comm, etc...I am sure RDs were present at Sharpsburg; just not in any great numbers when compared to other styles and makes, the photos, and even paintings done by veterans who were there. Case in point - the artillery painting done by a CS vet (who's name escapes me) showing a plethora of butternut garments. Lastly, how many of these garments, in this case Starke's men, may have been left over from the "Great Appeal" in the prior months, from August '61 to Oct. '62 (Cadet Gray & Butternut Brown, Ch. 1)? I have doubts that donated clothing would have been tossed by the QM simply becasue the Govt. had now begun manufacturing it...These dead along the Pike are Starke's men...they received an issue of clothing yet "no two are dressed alike", let alone all or the majority wearing RD jackets...Just food for thought...

[Secesh]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

Thanks for posting the pics.It's interesting to note that the man lying to the right of the Sergeant, with face unseen, is barefoot...

[FloridaConscript]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

True, all true...the point I am trying to make is that, unless specific irrefutable details are in view in an image, it is not "iron clad" that it is an RD...it could be a private purchase, tailor copy, similar Comm, etc...I am sure RDs were present at Sharpsburg; just not in any great numbers when compared to other styles and makes, the photos, and even paintings done by veterans who were there. Case in point - the artillery painting done by a CS vet (who's name escapes me) showing a plethora of butternut garments.

Sharpsburg can be the "vortex" of material culture research due to the fact that the commutation system is on it's last legs, regiments are contracting with the RCB for clothing (Lt. Col of the 7th SC mentions buying up "english woolens bluish/grey for the jackets and bright blue for trousers" and having the material sent to the "gov't shops in richmond" to be made into uniforms. this is august of 1862!), state clothing still very much a factor. Also look at where troops were before hand. DH Hills boys sat out 2nd Manassas around Richmond and rec'd gov't clothing before heading to Maryland. Some reg'ts like the 4th Texas were worn out. Lt Col. Carter, in his AAR, says his men are "half clad and many barefoot". Certainly AP Hills troops had a good chance to pick up Federal kit and some may have gotten civilian gear in Harpers Ferry.
All that said, I'd wager my Charlie Childs RDII in the mythical #22 that our man in the 46th NC is wearing a jacket made at the RCB.

[Jim S]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

The Richmond clothing issued to Starke's men in August was limited, and in fact the small proportion of it in the photos is what we should expect to see. And it's certainly true that there was a lot of dis-uniformity in the Q.M. issue goods. Up until December '62 it's very common to see Q.M. receipts that list a variety of clothing types. Striped shirts, checked shirts, sometimes pants and jackets of several different colors and materials being issued at once. It all seems to hint that donation was still a major source of clothing within the Q.M. system. Then, in the spring of '63, the receipts seem to get much more standard.

But as to the point of this thread, all I'll say at this time (article in the works) is that it's my position that there's no firm reason why anyone should be stressing about getting their RD jacket trimmed in time to be "correct" for Antietam. The evidence for trim as a standard feature on Richmond garments is shakier than most people realize, and plenty of clothing procured under commutation was plain. Most of the CS dead photographed at Antietam are without trim. The CS army at an Antietam event should look like an army trying to get by on whatever it can get, and while that includes worn out commutation garments with trim, it also should include a lot of other stuff. This is not the event to be trying for uniformity (unless you can document it for a particular unit, like the new NC regiments that had come up recently in nice state issue clothes).

[Jeff Dugdale]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

The Richmond clothing facility was producing (and issuing) 2-3,000 uniforms a week from October 61 through 1862.There were numerous large issues of clothing in June 62 to units from all States,continuing through to August.Kershaw's regiments recieved Government clothing as mentioned in several letters by brigade officers.Troops from South Carolina,Virginia,Texas,Georgia all recieved adequate clothing issues.North Carolina Troops were supplied in copious quantities in early 62 and again in May/June 62.
There would certainly be variety in the uniforms but that is the nature of all Armies on campaign throughout history.
Jeff Dugdale

[Secesh]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

Thanks Gents. Alot of good information being discussed here!

[RD1]

Re: Richmond Depot type II

While there is a lot of info.being discussed here, where is the actual documentation ?

L. Scott Hanes