Question on Schuyler, Hartley, & Graham markings on P1853 Enfields

[HoosierSince1829]

It seems to me that reenactors know as much as anybody about the details of history and don't bring a hidden agenda like so many antique dealers and academics. For that reason to get some good direction on a question I had on Civil War Enfields, I thought this would be a good place to go.

I had one ancestor on my father’s side of the family that served with the 29th Indiana and another ancestor on my mother’s side of the family that served with the 60th Indiana. Unfortunately, any weapons that either carried into battle were long ago lost to the family. I have been seeking for some time to purchase a genuine Civil War rifle that was as similar as possible to what my ancestors carried into battle at Shiloh and Vicksburg, respectively. My research has indicated that both of my ancestors’ regiments carried Pattern 1853 Enfields as their primary weapon. My research has further shown that the agent for the State of Indiana, Robert Dale Owen, purchased 40,000 Enfields from June 1861-Feb. 1863 for the state from Schuyler, Hartley, & Graham in New York and Samuel Buckley & Co., one of the founding members of B.S.A.

To get an Enfield that would be representative of what my ancestors carried into battle, I have been seeking a P1853 Enfield with the “Tower 1861” or “Tower 1862” markings on the lock plate and either the Schuyler, Hartley, & Graham or B.S.A.T. markings. With the Union importing over 500,000 Enfields, I would not have thought finding such a rifle would turn out to be as difficult a challenge as it has. Even though the Union imported more Enfields than the Confederacy, it seems that the great majority of the Enfields I come across today are offered with some sort of claim that they were likely Confederate owned. I suppose that is more a testament to the greed and lack of integrity of many dealers than representative of the true history of those weapons.

I have come across some Enfields with the Crown over S H / G # stamp on the wood stock, with the # being a 1, 3, 5, etc. Some dealers claim these marks are definitive proof of importation by Sinclair Hamilton and Confederate use. (Please see College Hill Arsenal -- https://www.collegehillarsenal.com/s...?productid=997 and Battle of Chicamauga.com: http://battleofchickamauga.com/index...roducts_id=192 ). I have seen others say that the S H / G # stamp is a marking by Schuyler, Hartley, & Graham. (Please see http://www.antiquearmsinc.com/tower-...aham-union.htm )

Would you be able to provide me some guidance that can clear up this controversy?

Best Regards,

Matt Striebel

[Tim Prince]

Re: Question on Schuyler, Hartley, & Graham markings on P1853 Enfields

Matt,

In response to your questions, I will first post the arguments that I postulated a few years ago, regarding the misidentification of the Crown/SH/G# mark as "Schuyler, Hartley & Graham". These arguments are purely circumstantial, but considering the number of points and their strength, I believe that it is about 90% certain that this mark can be accurately identified as a Confederate mark:

1) Every mark in this location (top of the butt comb, in front of the butt plate tang) that has been positively identified has been proven to be a Confederate mark. Including the famous JS / (ANCHOR), the various versions of the (CROWN) / SH / C / (ARROW) Sinclair, Hamilton & Company mark and the CH / 1 inspection mark of Curtis & Hughes. To date, no identified mark in this location has been proven to be a US mark, British mark, or the mark of any other country or military organization. All positively identified marks have been Confederate.
2) No evidence exists that Schuyler, Hartley & Graham ever marked the guns that they imported (or the domestic guns they sold). They imported thousands of guns, other than Enfields, from all over Europe and sold arms from US makers like Whitney and Mass Arms. To date no other types of guns have surfaced with the SH / G# mark, which suggests that this is most likely not their mark.
3) An extensive study of period documents, as well as the writings of the principles of Schuyler, Hartley & Graham located only ONE reference to the company as “SHG”, in all other cases the name was fully written out. Interestingly, period documents regularly refer to Sinclair, Hamilton & Company as “SHC”.
4) The mark has five variants, with the number after the “G” being a 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. Sinclair, Hamilton & Company used five “furnishers” for their 2nd Confederate contract for 30,000 P-1853 Enfield rifle muskets. These are the “JS/Anchor” guns with engraved numbers on their butt plate tangs. The furnishers often marked the comb of the butt with a single initial to indicate that they delivered the gun. The marks were B for EP Bond, F for Parker, Field & Son, K for James Kerr, (these 3 being London makers), S for Scott & Son and J for CW James (these last 2 being Birmingham makers). Just because their furnisher’s mark appeared on the stock, did not mean that they built the gun, only that they delivered to Sinclair, Hamilton & Company under this contract. It is rational to presume that the number following the “G” in the SH/G# mark refers to the furnisher for the contract.
5) The supposition in the last line of the above argument is further bolstered by the fact that an SH/G# marked gun is known to exist that also bears a furnisher’s marking letter. This is clear evidence of a gun with a known Confederate mark also bearing the SH/G# mark.
6) The final "smoking gun" recently appeared on the market. it is an "SHG1" marked P-1853 that also bears the Sinclair-Hamilton SH / C in an oval mark that is occasionally encountered on the breech of P-1853's. In this case the mark is at the end of the Birmingham proofs at the breech. This appears to be iron clad evidence that the SHG# mark is in fact another Sinclair, Hamilton & Co mark.

I first presented these arguments about 5 years ago, while I was deeply involved in research for the recently released book "The English Connection". During discussions with the primary author, we tried to establish the origin of the story that the Crown / SH / G# mark means Schuyler, Hartley & Graham. After substantial digging, and even enlisted firearms researcher and author Larry Yantz (co-author of "Firearms from Europe", and a number of other Civil War arms book) to look into the papers, letters, writings, etc. of the various principles in Schuyler, Hartley and Graham, we could still not come up with any documentation, or even a vague reference that this mark referred to their company. In the end, the consensus of all who looked into it was that the information was gun show lore. However, gun show lore cannot always be discounted, as much good information that had not previously been well documented did survive that way and get transferred from a generation of collectors and dealers who often knew more than the current crop of collectors and dealers. I appreciate the fact that Mr. McKinney (battleofchickamauga.com) thought enough of my arguments to cut and paste them from my web site to use in his description of the gun in question, but it would have been nice for him to cite their source. Regarding Mr. Wilburn's listing which identifies the mark as being that of Schuyler, Hartley & Graham, we have to bear in mind that until about 5 years that was the opinion of nearly everyone who dealt in Civil War imported Enfields. Just like any other field, opinions change as information becomes available and our knowledge evolves. If you look at the inventory number on the gun in question on Mr. Wilburn's site, it is about 1000 items earlier than most of his current inventory of Civil War arms, suggesting the listing is at least a couple of years old, if not more. As noted above, things change as we learn more. A great example is that in the classic book on Confederate arms by Hill & Anthony, the Enfield's made by JP Moore (aka "M Rifles") are listed as CS arms. This has since been proven completely incorrect. We learn things over time with more research.

Some further evidence that the gun that was listed on my web site is almost certainly Confederate comes from the McRae Papers themselves. If you will note, the stock flat has a "Script JC" in an oval cartouche. The mark was previously unidentified, and for some time it was believed that it might have even been an unknown US inspector's mark, which would make sense in the case of the Schuyler, Hartley & Graham identification. However, if you will look at the signature of Isaac Curtis on the attached image of a receipt from the McRae Papers, you will see that the "I" and "C" in his signature are nearly identical to the "JC" cartouche on the musket. Curtis was an English arms viewer who was hired to inspect Confederate purchased arms. He apparently had multiple marks, with the CH/1 in a circle mark being the best known. It represented himself and a Mr. Hughes, both of whom were engaged in viewing Confederate arms purchase, primarily from Barnett. In fact, this receipt for arms inspection is from a lot of P-1851 Minié Rifles that Caleb Huse purchased through S. Isaac, Campbell & Company from Barnett. However, Curtis obviously did some viewing for other CS arms contracts, as a block I.C in a cartouche mark is known on Confederate marked guns as well, and I believe that this script "JC" is in fact another of Isaac Curtis's marks, and really a scrip "IC". This is better than just "circumstantial" evidence.

On your point that US marked Enfields seem to be quite rare, you are absolutely correct. As a long time collector and researcher of imported arms used during the American Civil War, and a dealer for over 10 years, I have to agree that US marked Enfields are very rare, much rarer in fact than CS marked ones. I have only ever seen a couple that I felt bore any type of legitimate US government inspection marks, and the few other US marked guns I have seen, owned or sold bore Northern state markings, most often Massachusetts regimental marks from the Crowningshield purchase, state of New Jersey ownership marks, or post-war Louisiana State Militia (LSM) markings. This is easily explained when the Ordnance Department system of inspection and marking of arms is considered. It was only when the Ordnance Department contracted with a manufacturer for a specific manufacturing run of arms that regular inspection of the arms took place, especially during war time. This usually involved a sub-inspector being dispatched to the factory to mark individual parts after they were manufactured and had passed inspection and gauging. The sub-inspector would then inspect the finished product and place his cartouche on it. After that an Ordnance Department officer would place a final inspection cartouche on the arm accepting it for service. Arms that were purchased on the open market did not receive this type of inspection and rarely received inspection marks or cartouches.

So it is much easier to find a CS marked Enfield than a US marked one. I don't believe there is any particular "greed" involved with most dealers offering CS Enfields, they are simply more plentiful than their US marked counterparts. While I am sure Enfields have been identified as "CS" over the years that were not, this seems to be more from a lack of knowledge or wishful thinking than an outright attempt to defraud. If your experiences have been different, you have probably been dealing with the wrong people. I always counsel any collectors to buy from reputable, well known dealers with a track record of honesty who will stand behind what they sell. If you are going to buy items randomly at a gun show or from an auction house, then you better be a well educated buyer in order to make sure that you are getting what you think you are getting. This speaks directly to the "lack of integrity" that you reference. However, none of the dealers that you provided links to have any integrity issues that I am aware of. I know many on this forum will vouch for me (as you don't know me) and I can vouch for the other dealers you linked to.

As to a "hidden agenda", the only one I have is to help disseminate good information about Civil War arms to my customers, and to those who choose to visit my web site. I provide the extensive information that I do to help educate customers, and as a direct backlash to those dealers who take a couple of pictures of any item, say something witty about it, and rely on the customer's knowledge (or lack there of) to make the sale. As to the hidden agenda of academics, that might apply to those that are trying to espouse a certain theory or myth (the "Lost Cause", etc.) but I'm not sure that an academic writing on material culture of the era can even have an "agenda" regarding objects. Your comment that you felt you could get better information about Civil War Enfields on an internet reenacting forum than from academic sources or reputable dealers who specialize in Civil War era arms seems a little naive. While there are many great scholars and material culture researchers on this forum, the very nature of their "academic" practices appears to be an issue for you. Anyone else who answers your question, who has not handled a large number of original arms, and done significant research in both primary and secondary sources, is just repeating something they heard or read somewhere, and is probably not the most reliable source.

The most accurate Enfield you will probably be able to buy will be a commercially marked one, with the lock markings you mentioned, void of any British military marks, any CS mark, or the marks of any other country. This "Plain Jane" Enfield will be reasonably priced by comparison to its CS counterpart, and will be as historically accurate as you likely to find. Unless you find evidence that your ancestor’s regiments marked their guns in a specific way, will likely never be able to establish any such concrete connection on an original gun.

[HoosierSince1829]

Re: Question on Schuyler, Hartley, & Graham markings on P1853 Enfields

Mr. Prince,

Many thank-you’s for your very thorough and well thought out response to my question. The case you make for your position is persuasive and well thought out.

One thing I have struggled with is the "why"? My meaning being: 1) why would Sinclair Hamilton use distinctly different sets of markings for the rifles it imported, and 2) On the rifles marked SH/G# why would they then go to the additional trouble of using a separate number to designate each supplier?

The advantage in marking an item to designate each supplier is obvious to anyone who has dealt with overseas suppliers in this day and age -- such a system would allow one to much more quickly determine the source and cause of any quality issues. However, in my researching of my Civil War ancestors it has become all too clear how the sheer mass of men serving and dying in the war in a very short amount of time overwhelmed the bureaucracies and record keeping abilities of the era resulting in many inconsistencies reported on even the most essential data, such as the date and place of death of a soldier. As the Confederacy was in a desperate rush to get as many weapons into its soldiers’ hands as quickly as possible, it seems that separate stamps for each rifle supplier would be a procedure that would be likely to fairly quickly be jettisoned in favor of just getting the rifles shipped out.

By any chance did your research show any evidence of the S,H./G# being a mark used on earlier rifles that was discontinued in favor of a uniform S H C mark on later rifles?

In regards to my comments regarding dealers and academics, I don't believe my point was well made. In any vocation in life -- be it doctors, pastors, politicians, or dealers in antiques – I believe the bell curve distribution applies. That means that the most are varying degrees of average, with a few outstanding performers at one end and a few scoundrels or incompetents at the other end. If my comments came across as casting aspersions on the profession of dealers as a whole that was a not my intent. There are some fine dealers from whom I have learned a great deal. Regarding P1853 Enflields the point I made was not that Confederate attributed Enfields outnumber the number with definite Federal or Union state markings. My point was that when I take a survey of the P1853 offered dealers as a whole on the internet today the number of rifles given some sort of Confederate attribution outnumbers the combined numbers of those given NO attribution and those rare one’s given a Union attribution. That just seems to me out of balance with what one should expect to see.

I look upon these weapons not as mere artifacts, but as sacred objects. If these items are presented in anything less the most honest and forthright manner as to what is known about them (or that nothing can be definitively known, if that is the case), then I view it as a dishonor to the brave men that once carried the weapons into battle and a disservice to future generations who want to learn and know the truth of the sacrifice of those men. I applaud men, such as yourself, that do the hard and thankless work and conduct the detailed research to better learn the true history of these old weapons and thereby allow us to more fully and properly honor the men that use them. I merely feel that the envelope is pushed too far by too many in their claims of Confederate attribution without doing the detailed research and presentation of facts to substantiate their claims, and this irks me.

Regarding an agenda in academia, I don't know how much time you have spent on our college campuses lately, but I am sad to say that agenda's -- particularly in history departments -- rather than unbiased pursuit of truth for truths for its own sake, regardless of where the facts may lead is an all too common occurance. Business school would be one place where one would expect academics to be number and fact oriented. However, I had to endure listening to a graduate school professor tell me after 9/11 how our country was to blame for having provoked the attack. While the article shown in the following link talks about the education system in Britain, I think it sums up far better than my clumsy words ever could my concerns about agendas in academia and the state of our higher education system in the United States. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...n-schools.html

My point in all of this is to learn from others, such as yourself, that have dedicated themselves to history. To hang a Confederate Enfield on my wall under the false impression it was Union would neither honor my ancestors nor the Confederate soldier that carried it into battle. I thank you again for taking the time to share with your research and ideas so I that I can better understand the history of these weapons and the men who used them.

Best Regards,
Matt

[MarkTK36thIL]

Re: Question on Schuyler, Hartley, & Graham markings on P1853 Enfields

Tim,
Do people know you have a recently published book on this sort-of stuff? ;) Shameless plug on your behalf!
Mark

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Question on Schuyler, Hartley, & Graham markings on P1853 Enfields

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?43089-The-English-Connection

As far as the original question, statistically speaking if somebody was seeking a representative P53 Enfield of the kind most often imported by the Union early in the war, it would appear something from BSAT or at least a Birmingham gun-maker, Tower marked, would best fit the bill. However, without any sort of direct connection to an ancestor who bought his weapon when the war ended or other identified Civil War provenance, one can't make the presumption that any particular P53 would be more correct for 60th Indiana troops than another one.

[Tim Prince]

Re: Question on Schuyler, Hartley, & Graham markings on P1853 Enfields

Matt,

It is not clear why so many different Sinclair, Hamilton & Company inspection marks exist. I have some theories, but they are only theories. First off, a little primer on the various known contracts. the McRae Papers indicate at least 5 CS central government contracts for P-1853 "Long Enfields", with the contracts appearing to be for 30,000 arms each, delivered over 6 month periods. The best known and documented contract is the "2nd Contract" for 30,000 guns, to be delivered between October 1, 1861 and April 1, 1862. These are the JS/Anchor marked guns with engraved butt plate numbers, engraved rammer numbers and engraved bayonet numbers. The guns were marked in 3 series, 1-10,000, 1-10,000 over the suffix "A" and 1-10,000 over the suffix "B". Many of these guns were also marked with a single large capital letter "Furnishers" mark on the top of the stock comb, indicating the master contractor who delivered the gun.

Sinclair, Hamilton & Company acquired their arms through “Five Furnishers”. These were well-established gun making firms that were able to fill the large Sinclair, Hamilton & Company orders in a reasonable period of time. The “five furnishers” were the long time London gunmakers EP Bond (6,000), Parker, Field & Sons (5,500), and James Kerr (500). Kerr apparently received a tiny portion of the contract (only 500 guns) due to his relationship with the London Armoury Company. Archibald Hamilton of Sinclair, Hamilton & Company was the managing director of The London Armoury Company, and James Kerr (of Kerr revolver fame) was London Armoury Company’s manager. The balance of the guns were delivered by the Birmingham based firms of C.W. James (10,000) and W.C. Scott & Son (8,000). The furnishers often marked the guns that were delivered under this contract with a large single letter on the upper comb of the stock, just forward of the buttplate tang. The guns were marked with a B for Bond, an F for Parker, Field & Sons, a J for C.W. James, a K for James Kerr and an S for Scott & Son. A sixth single letter mark, P has been noted on a handful of extant Confederate Enfields from this contract. This mark was previously thought to be an alternate mark for Parker, Field & Company. However, more recent examination of extant examples and the other associated marks on those guns has revealed that this was the mark of Francis Preston of Manchester, England. Preston is best known as a cutler and provider of bayonets during the Civil War era, and it is not clear why he delivered guns and how they fit into the 30,000 guns from this contract. It would be reasonable to believe that his guns represented part of the total guns delivered by either James or Scott.

To your point that taking time to put furnishers marks, etc on the guns was a waste of time given the procurement situation, you are right. This is why the numbering of the guns ceased after the 2nd contract. Interestingly no authentic numbered "B" suffix ramrod or bayonet is known to exist, suggesting that by the time the last 10,000 guns were being inspected and marked the numbering of these accessories had been discontinued to speed up delivery. This inspection teams that viewed this contract was lead by John Southgate, and the guns received the JS/Anchor viewer's mark. I believe that many of the other variant Sinclair, Hamilton & Co marks may represent different contracts and/or inspection teams. We find the Anchor/S inspection mark on 1863 and 1864 dated Enfields, suggesting that they were probably 4th(?) contract guns, and the inspection team was probably lead by Southgate again. The other known Sinclair, Hamilton & Co marks (variants of Crown/SH/C, SH/C, etc) probably represent other contracts and different inspection teams. Note that the 5 contracts for 30,000 guns each only account for 150,000 guns, and most researchers agree that the south bought at least 250,000 P-1853s and possibly as many as 400,000. This suggests that these central government contracts only represent about half of the CS purchases, with the balance being either state or speculative purchases. Many state purchases are marked with a state letter or letters (SC, G, NC, LA), but many more are not known to be marked. The Crown/SH/G# mark primarily appears on 1862 dated guns although I know of one 1861 dated example, and some 1863 dated examples (maybe 25% o the known guns). This suggests purchase at the height of speculative and state purchases. What we don't know for sure is if the numbers 1-5 relate to the 5 furnishers (which certainly makes sense) or relate to different teams of inspectors working in different locations. Either is a legitimate possibility. Sadly, we have not really be able to assemble a specific time line for the different SHC markings, especially since almost all of the variants appear on 1862 dated guns. Again this suggests the marks refer to a variety of contracts or a variety of inspection teams, or both. By simply looking at the inspection receipt from Isaac Curtis that I attached above, you see that he personally inspected 120 P-1851s in one day. Using that as a baseline, and assuming a 10 hour working day, that means he only viewed 12 guns an hour, spending 5 minutes per gun. That means the 30,000 JS/Anchor guns took 2,500 man hours to inspect, not counting the time to engrave the butt, etc. That means it would take 1 man 250 days to inspect the contract, or 25 men 10 days to do the same. This suggests that multiple teams of multiple inspectors had to be working in order to get the guns inspected in a reasonable amount of time.

I hope that this clears up the somewhat muddy waters. I think Craig did a nice job of saying in clearer fashion what I said earlier about finding an appropriate Enfield to represent what your ancestor carried. As another shameless plug for our recently released book that covers much of this in great detail and with great photos, please visit the web site for our book:
http://www.theenglishconnectionbook.com/Home

Thank you.

[HoosierSince1829]

Re: Question on Schuyler, Hartley, & Graham markings on P1853 Enfields

Messrs. Prince and Barry,

Thank you for sharing a bit of your knowledge and providing me a much clearer understanding of matters. I have just ordered the The English Connection. I look forward to receiving it and continuing to learn more about these fascinating old rifles.

Would either of you be able to recommend a good reference work that you or one of your colleagues has written that goes into similar detail regarding Union arms?

Best Regards,

Matt

[Tim Prince]

Re: Question on Schuyler, Hartley, & Graham markings on P1853 Enfields

Matt,

I'm not sure if Craig covers Union procurement of Enfields in any of his books. To my knowledge the best current resource regarding US procurement of Enfields is in the section on English arms in Firearms From Europe by Whisker, Hartzler, Yantz & Noe. It's out of print. Try to find a "2nd Edition" as it corrects some of the issues with the original book. Sadly there are some grievous errors in their book, but its the best thing out there, covering procurement (both North and South) of all varieties of imported arms. I'm sure you can find one on Amazon or from one of the Civil War dealers who still has a few on their shelf. I bought the last few boxes of the ones that Larry Yantz had about 3 years ago, and sold them pretty quick at around $45 each. I've seen them as high as $150 on the secondary market, but that is probably too high, so shop around. I have a friend working on a book regarding the importation of Austrian arms for the war, but it's still a few years off from being published.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Question on Schuyler, Hartley, & Graham markings on P1853 Enfields

Well, the series of books by D Burt and myself are under the title "Suppliers to the Confederacy" so not too much on the Union procurement of foreign arms in those books. One source that I relied on doing different article length research pieces on the Enfield (and other imported arms) was Marcellus Hartley: A Brief Memoir. Hartley was the partner in SH&G, Beginning on p 26 is a chapter concerning his recollections about "Work for the Cause of the Union." In the Appendix is a collection of his letters and correspondence from this period which is quite insightful.

The full text is online: http://www.archive.org/stream/marcel...0jwhf_djvu.txt

Let me hasten to add, he does not go into detail about how these Enfields were marked, etc. He was more interested in keeping serviceable European arms from falling into Confederate hands.