Federal Frocks

[boreguard]

Re: Federal Frocks

Ryan where did you find the Photo of Gordon? Was he commissioned prior to the war's start? and if so his rank going into the war if another intresting question I've got. The photo shows no rank. Just curious.

Thanks
Dennis Neal

[Rob Weber]

Re: Federal Frocks

Forgive me for jumping in so late on this. This is a bit off topic but I think it is worth a mention here.

In regards to the image that Mark posted of the officer from the 69th IL. I would be a little leary about assuming this is an image of an officer utilizing an enlistedmans frock coat. The image is heavily retouched and it looks as if the sword, scabbard and shoulder straps could have been added on after the fact or after he was promoted. Besides that, it appears that he is wearing an enlisted mans cap and he is not wearing a belt. It is not so uncommon to come across period civilian images that actually have military uniforms painted or retouched onto them. Not seeing the original image it is hard to tell if this is the case here but it does appear these items may have been added on later by looking at what was posted.

This is in no way an argument against the intent of the original post as we can clearly see from what Mr. Weddle posted, that this must have happened from time to time. I just thought that there might be more then what meets the eye in that first image.

Thanks for your time .

Rob Weber

[markj]

Re: Federal Frocks

Forgive me for jumping in so late on this. This is a bit off topic but I think it is worth a mention here.

In regards to the image that Mark posted of the officer from the 69th IL. I would be a little leary about assuming this is an image of an officer utilizing an enlistedmans frock coat. The image is heavily retouched and it looks as if the sword, scabbard and shoulder straps could have been added on after the fact or after he was promoted. Besides that, it appears that he is wearing an enlisted mans cap and he is not wearing a belt. It is not so uncommon to come across period civilian images that actually have military uniforms painted or retouched onto them. Not seeing the original image it is hard to tell if this is the case here but it does appear these items may have been added on later by looking at what was posted.

This is in no way an argument against the intent of the original post as we can clearly see from what Mr. Weddle posted, that this must have happened from time to time. I just thought that there might be more then what meets the eye in that first image.

Thanks for your time .

Rob Weber

Hi Rob,

I presume you're referring to the 69th Indiana image? The only thing I can suggest is for you to look at the exhibit and draw your own conclusions.

Again, the 69th IVI was raised on rather short notice and was deployed to Kentucky with almost no meaningful training along with several other Indiana regiments (with predictably disastrous results at Richmond KY). Indeed, some Indiana units were deployed even before they had received their arms. I've looked at the image (which is behind glass) but, as far as I can tell, the shoulder straps are NOT "after the fact" additions. The man depicted was later commissioned into an Indiana cavalry unit but died from the effects of a wartime wound and disease toward the end of 1865.

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[RyanBWeddle]

Re: Federal Frocks

More likely than not this is an image from his stint as Captain of the Lynchburg Home Guard, circa 1859-1860. He was an attorney, professor and VMI graduate.

When the Lynchburg Home Guard was mustered into state service in 1861 (see Report on the Virginia Militia http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...ead.php?t=4098), Garland was commissioned as colonel, commanding the 11th Virginia Regiment. The Lynchburg Home Guard became company G. Garland led the 11th Virginia at 1st Manassas, Dranesville and Williamsburg. He was promoted to Brigadier General during the Seven Days Campaign, and was killed at South Mountain, 9/14/62.

More info is available in the May 1996 issue of America's Civil War

[Bill Cross]

Retouching period images

It is not so uncommon to come across period civilian images that actually have military uniforms painted or retouched onto them.

Would you be so kind as to reference some of these? I'm a bit of an amateur fan of the wet plate process, and I know that images were heavily retouched for color, but I have not seen a great deal of stuff added. I'd like to look at the images you refer to that I might expand my knowledge of period photography.

[ScottCross]

Re: Retouching period images

Bill,

Right after the beginning of the war, there was a great demand for images of southern generals. Many enterprising photographers, like Mathew Brady and E. & H. T. Anthony, found civilian photographs of these notable men and altered them by putting uniforms on them. Close inspection shows that most of these images were actually lithographs with the subjects head transposed on to a uniformed figure that were then photgraphed to get a negative and then mass produced. Some of these images even show the same body! The Anthonys actually would sell complete albums with all your favorite generals in them. Our museum has one of these albums and some of these altered images are of: Robert E. Lee;Albert Sydney Johnston; Leonidas Polk (made from the image of him in his Bishop's Robes!); John C. Breckenridge; Sterling Price; Braxton Bragg; Stonewall Jackson; and many others.

[Bill Cross]

Thanks, I didn't know that

That's very interesting, Scott. I appreciate the reference.

It's important, though, to distinguish between altering an image intended for mass production and "retouching" an individual wet plate. I guess I want to be cautious before giving modern tools to 19th Century artists, if you get my drift. Crudely painted-on details are relatively common in mass-consumption imagery like "French postcards," but most of the ones I've seen are post-CW.

[Rob Weber]

Re: Federal Frocks

Hi Bill Cross,

I saw your post yesterday and promissed myself that I would go home last night and go through some books in search of evidence illustrative of what I was talking about. Well as it worked out I quickly checked out a small book (Faces of Gettysburg?) this morning as I was eating my eggs and swilling coffe before heading off to fight the NYC rush hour traffic. I didn't find exactly what I was looking for in this book but did find something similar. There is an image of a Virginian who had been killed during Pickets charge. The image (although very dark) appears to be a pre war civillian image with a rifle added in at a later date. Although this is not a uniform it is in essence what I am talking about.

I will spend some more time looking through books and give some other references when the moment presents itself.

Rob Weber

Rob Weber

[Bill Cross]

Re: Federal Frocks

The image (although very dark) appears to be a pre war civillian image with a rifle added in at a later date. Although this is not a uniform it is in essence what I am talking about.

Thanks, Ron, I'd love to see a scan of it if you can post it.

[Robert Braun]

Two points...

Two points on the wear of enlisted dress coats by officers. (First off, I concur with the majority of contributors who have expressed the opinion that this practice should be avoided.)

1. I recall seeing (don't you HATE posts that begin with this??) :angry_smi a phto of just this-- an enlisted dress coat worn with second lieutenant straps as published by Harry Roach in an old issue of Military Images magazine. Harry even pointed out that it looked like a "promotion" or at least a "brevet rank." I have also seen orderly sergeants wearing offcier swords. I wondered about THAT as well... and for a while passed it off as sergeants wearing swords to which they are entitled, but pushing the "officer envelope" (kinda like enlisted men in the images wearing officer-grade hat cords.) Then I found more info. (see No. 2 below.);

2. Before embarking on the steamer for the Red River Campign the Thirty-third Wisconsin realized it was desperately short of offciers. Headquarters published Special Orders No. 11 on March 8, 1864 that promoted one "acting" lieutenant per company, for service during this campaign. Most of the men were first sergeants; one man was a private. Special Order No. 11 said, in part:

Upon the recommendation of Company Commanders it is hereby ordered [that] the following named Non Commissioned Officers and Privates be and hereby are ordered to act as 2d Lieut's. [sic] of their respective companies during the present expedition...

Unfortunately, I have no idea if there were uniform modifications or not. While I doubt it, as the regiment marched for the steamer landing the next day, it is possible that some offcier trappings may have been acquired that evening. As a rule, I suspect these men most probably served in the capacity of lieutenants, but without the trappings we moderns might associate with officers.*

The bulk of these men were returned to their respective ranks at the conclusion of the campaign as a result of Special Orders No. 6, dated June 12, 1864.

*Imagine being at some event and overhearing a fellow wearing rank of orderly sergant, but wearing an officer sword and waistbelt, ordering his company about and insisting he be called "sir"!! What would our reaction be??

Regards, Bob.

[weed]

Re: Federal Frocks

Bob, if you recall when we did the "Herley Guard" at the Camp Randall event, I can as a Lt. wearing a EM frockcoat.

Maybe we can get Mike Thorson to post the picture that was taken.

Ex brevet Lt.: John M. Wedeward
33d Wisconsin
Co. Military Historians