"The Simple Four Button Jacket"

[Citizen_Soldier]

Re: "The Simple Four Button Jacket"

Greetings,
I have wondered for awhile if these garmets aren't indeed a citizen sackcoat pattern that was militarized for the Rebellion. Let me explain a little for my reasoning on this subject.

From the 1840's on you see the informal sackcoat become a common fixture in the wardrobe of the American male. These early sackcoats were a pattern that had narrow sleeves and fairly close fitting body that lasted as the "instyle" cut until the middle part of the 1850's when the looser baggier sack coat begins to be introduced. However, the earlier pattern was still being sold as a more conservative cut and with the Panic of 1857 somewhat retarding the proliferation of modern fashions to some areas of the US, these garments are still seen in numbers by the time the Rebellion starts and into the early 1860's until they're mostly replaced by more modern cuts.

These early sackcoats fit in a different way than the more modern late 1850's garments, and would be close fitting in the body...giving the appearence to the modern reenactors eye as a "shell jacket fit" of sorts. Especially when one considers that many of the reproduction citizen sack coats on the market seem to follow the later baggier looser late 1850's style.

I wonder if these aren't some of the "worker coats" being referred to in this thread, as the more conservative styles fell out of fashion they would be implemented as work clothing...an activity you see taking place pretty much across the entire 19th century in regard to mens wear.

Being that the sack coat was a cheap mass produced untailored men's garment during the period, I could with educated conjecture easily see for the same reasons these garments with a now militarized pattern being produced and distributed by state agencies, the central goverment, and through the communtation system. Perhaps these "4 button shell jackets" are a militarized sackcoat pattern with a conservative cut.

Recently this summer a citizen's sack coat that follows this early pattern came out of the woodwork along with a pair of citizens trousers dating from cut to the early to mid 1850s. The provanance for the pieces state they were worn by an Iowa soldier when he enlisted in the Rebellion. At this time they are undergoing research and verification by the owner of the private collection they reside in. However, I had an opportunity to examine this linen summer sack coat and without the fold down lapel, the fit of the garment in the body appears very similar to that of a shell jacket.

Just my thoughts,

Darrek Orwig

[Tennessee Boy]

Re: "The Simple Four Button Jacket"

Hi Guys

http://www.oldsouthantiques.com/forsale/os270p1.htm

Not sure if this link adds to the discussion.

Ian Smith
------------
55th Virginia

[neocelt]

Provenance...

Darrek,

Thanks for your contribution to the dialogue! You've articulated an interesting refinement of the hypothesis that this type of Confederate jacket/coat is based on a common antebellum laborer's garment. The Midwestern/Federal association of the artifact you mentioned is thought-provoking (to say the least!), however, until its provenance can be established it isn't overly helpful--any chance you might be able to at least post a photo of the artifact? Alternatively, can you (or anyone else here) possibly post a period image (or at least the bibliographic info. to direct us to one) of the earlier-style, more tightly-fitted civilian sack coat of which you speak? I concur with Bob Williams that the group shot of the good ol' boys from Missouri is one of the very best examples of the varieties of common period daywear that I have ever seen (still, I don't see one of these tighter-fitting sack coats represented here...)! I think more photos would be helpful in furthering this discussion.

Dan: You discount the possibility that the coat in the image you initially posted is simply a civilian sack coat with a turned-up collar based on your interpretation of the "wrinkle pattern in the collar and top corner," but you do not address the other details I noted: the lack of a top button, the noticeable angle in the front edge of the coat above the uppermost buttonhole--both of which are indicative of a lapel. The additional rows of reinforcing stitching on the collar, too, are typical of the construction of the underside of a collar which is intended to be folded down (they help hold the interfacing in place and are only visible on the underside of the collar); conversely (and please correct me if I'm wrong about this), I don't believe this feature is evident on any of the extant examples of the four-button Confederate uniform jackets/coats under discussion. Further, with all due respect, I think it's a stretch to label this garment a "probable" Confederate uniform item of any type when the image was discovered in Michigan and has absolutely nothing to lend credence to the hypothesis that it is anything other than a portrait of a working-class civilian. In your first posting, you say the sitter is "likely a young confederate soldier" and in a later posting you remove all doubt by referring to "The young soldier in the picture...". You seem convinced that this is an image of a Confederate soldier--why? Perhaps he is, and perhaps not. But without anything to rule this out as being an image of a young civilian member of the working class (which is statistically much more "probable" than his being a Confederate soldier), the image is nothing more than an interesting example of common period civilian attire. Please don't misread my intentions; I am indeed grateful to you for bringing up the subject--I'm just not convinced that the unidentified image from a "small antique shop in Michigan" helps clarify the issue.

Cheers,
Nick

[Dan Wambaugh]

Re: "The Simple Four Button Jacket"

Nick,

You definitely make an interesting point, and I certainly agree that because of the lack of the button more than anything else it causes this image to be somewhat suspect. I had never really considered the middle row of shadow to be a second line of stitching for the interfacing, in fact I had never given it much thought whatsoever, but based on its appearance this could be very likely and as such, coupled with the missing button would definitely begin to change the conclusion on this particular garment.

There still is something wrong about the image (or is that right) that leads me to believe that it is not simply a civilian picture. The war time date, the subject casually wearing a hat, the cut and appearance of his garment, the exposed welted pocket on only one side, and when examined under a loop the coarse weave of the fabric just don't make things sit right to me for this to be a common civilian sack coat. Taken individually all of these features could be easily dismissed as being part of a simple individual's style, but taken all together it certainly makes one pause.

It's all unfortunately academic now at any rate, as the image was already sold at auction earlier this year.


Darreck,

I like your thoughts very much, and think that your ideas behind the origin are a very viable possibility. Certain features of the original coats both speak to a civilian and sack coat origin, but deny them as well. The wider front facing exhibited in all of the surviving originals (and shown clearly in Ian's images of the private collection jacket) suggest a garment originally designed to have a lapel folded back.

However, there are a few features that make one pause when considering these garments next to a common civilian sack coat. One major stand-out feature is that the tight-fitting body is contrasted by the billowy one-piece sleeve. The pattern is distinctly different than that of the sack coat, with back pieces of a jacket and a front piece that seems to incorporate the side piece into it. These dramatic pattern differences belie a distinctly different garment from a sack coat, and are much more similar to a jacket in construction and fit.

If I had the proper software (or even a small amount of drawing talent) I would illustrate what I mean with a "four button" pattern layed over a sack coat pattern displaying the differences. Perhaps someone out there with a little more time and talent than I could do so?

Nevertheless, I think that the idea of a pre-war civilian pattern and style adpoted for military use is very feasible, and would certainly explain the proliferation across the south at seemingly all times of the war. And I would also be very interested in seeing the information on the original garment you have discovered when you want to make it public.


Another question for the general assembly: Why is the origin of the jacket being attributed to the Richmond Depot? Obviously, several of the surviving originals have late war Virginia ties, but does that necessarily mean that they were Richmond depot items?



Best,

[roundshot]

Re: "The Simple Four Button Jacket"

That some of these coats have VA association does not mean they are Richmond Depot products. We forget that the Confederate QM Department was a system. I get back to the issue of seasonal clothing referred to in an earlier post.

As part of a report to Sec'y of War Breckinridge on 2/16/65, QM A.R. Lawton includes the following endorsement from Major Wm. B. Cross: "As to the future the greatest difficulty will be to provide the raw material-wool and leather-the former, especially. The manufacturing facilities are ample. Efforts are being made to provide the deficiency of wool from the Trans-Mississippi region, where it is abundant. Some deliveries have recently been made on this side. The wool is worked up as rapidly as had. By using cotton clothing during the summer and spring and reserving the woolen goods for fall and winter, it is hoped and believed that enough may be had to prevent suffering next winter. We will get through this season without much trouble." [OR Series iv, Vol. 3, p. 1090].

Note the deliveries from "out west" cited above and the seasonal issues by type of clothing. I would also submit that the large two-hole wooden buttons seen on some of these coats scream, or at least loudly hollar, "Deep South" in origin. The buttons seen on Richmond garments are generally of a smaller 4-hole variety. Samples may be seen in the Virginia Historical Society's Battle Abbey collection.

As one last thing I attach a picture showing the "Old Guard" of Confederate Veterans in Richmond in 1890. I have often wondered if the fellow on the left is none other than Thomas Vaden Brook of the Richmond Howitzers. His black collared 4 button jacket, trousers, gunners haversack, and hat seem to match those worn by Brooke and now held in the MOC, and depicted in EOG. Anyway, just a speculation.

[Citizen_Soldier]

Re: "The Simple Four Button Jacket"

Greetings,
The cut of the body of the conservative extant sack coat I referred to in my earlier post on this thread is quite similar to that of a shell jacket and not at all like that of any of the reproduction sack coats currently on the market that I'm familiar with. It has a three piece body, however the front panels wrap around the sides to a back panel cut similar to the pieced center panel of a CW era shell jacket. When this garment is placed on a form it fits very much like a long bodied shell jacket. However that is where the similarities to a military garment end as the piece is certainly a mass produced citizens garment.

As to the provenance of the piece, the story is currently checking out. It appears the piece was worn to a training camp and worn for a short time until goverment uniforms were issued, after which it was sent home. There is a fair bit of wear to the waist and shoulders of the textile from equipment belts being worn over it.

A quick and easy source for many in regards to citizens sack coats of an earlier pattern would be Joan Severa's book "Dressed for the Photographer."

At this time I haven't seen any garments that look like "4 button shell jackets" with stand up collars being used by civilian workers during the period of the Rebellion, could anyone share any material they have on these? The closest I've found with a standup collar is a mechanics coat that is cut along similar lines...being offered in denim and cotton duck during the 1890's....nearly thirty something years after the conclusion of the conflict.

There seems to be perhaps differences in cut and style between some of the "4 button military coats" in photographs and the extant examples with a possible Richmond connection...could there have been multiple manufacturers across the south with varying production numbers?

I'll try to post more when I get a chance, this is a good thread.

Darrek Orwig

[neocelt]

Re: "The Simple Four Button Jacket"

This thread is turning out to be a very good one, indeed!

Darrek,

I'm not sure how easy it is for most folks to procure a copy of Dressed for the Photographer (even here at UVA the only copy is held in Special Collections), but I'd agree that it is a phenomenal resource if one can lay hands on it. I can see no reason why a jacket of this type wouldn't have been made under the auspices of clothing depots all over the Confederacy. Having said that, minor variations in cut and assembly techniques amongst bona fide Confederate jackets of this type don't necessarily imply different sources of origin (Consider: The same can be said of bog-standard Federal uniform items produced by local Philidelphia women under the auspices of the Schuylkill Arsenal, and are all of the so-called "Columbus Depot" jackets identical?). I believe that in our earnest quest for knowledge, we sometimes tend to overthink these things. Witness our overwhelming urge to categorize this stuff by every anomaly we can find; hence, the ubiquitous "Type A" (or better yet, "Type IIIb"!) syndrome. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...

Dan, you said: "There still is something wrong about the image (or is that right) that leads me to believe that it is not simply a civilian picture. The war time date, the subject casually wearing a hat, the cut and appearance of his garment, the exposed welted pocket on only one side, and when examined under a loop the coarse weave of the fabric just don't make things sit right to me for this to be a common civilian sack coat. Taken individually all of these features could be easily dismissed as being part of a simple individual's style, but taken all together it certainly makes one pause." I'm afraid I just don't follow. Every detail you mentioned--whether taken singly or collectively--can as easily be attributed to a civilian as a Confederate soldier. I simply can't see where the fact that the image has a wartime date (which, incidentally, you variously ascribe to March 1864 and March 1865--which is correct?) is compelling evidence of a martial connection, nor the fact that the gent is wearing his hat in a "casual" manner. The cut of the coat is more civilian than military, and I believe every period civilian sack coat I've ever seen has had a single "welted" (sic - placket-faced) breast pocket. The fact that the fabric appears to be of a utilitarian coarse weave or texture only reinforces to the supposition that this is a working-class citizen's garment. Indeed, in one of your earlier posts, you yourself stated: "Through his own research of the LoC database and other accounts, my partner Brian has educated me as to the popularity of the simple 'laborer's jacket.' There are a number of images that show workmen during the war in northern manufacturing establishments that have similar garments." Seems to me you've made a pretty compelling agrument against the "probability" of this fellow being a Confederate soldier. While it's tempting to want to see a Confederate in an image like this one, we simply have no evidence I can discern to reasonably draw this conclusion. Dan, I'm not trying to bust your chops here, but I think it's important that we don't muddy the water when discussing something as specific as the Confederate four-button jacket--our study sample should only include artifacts and images with sound provenance of Confederate association.

Cheers,

[brown]

Re: "The Simple Four Button Jacket"

Nick,
I agree with your point about constructions differences being common even in a single source. To further your point, "are all of the so-called "Columbus Depot" jackets identical?"; I believe that all the surviving examples have notabe difference and none are near identical. Of course, they are but a fraction of the total production (as seen in photographs and descriptions) and we don't know for sure that they are all from the same location of production, but that might be just a little too detailed for this discussion.

This thread just keeps getting better, doesn't it.
Lindsey

[Dan Wambaugh]

Re: "The Simple Four Button Jacket"

Nick,

I meant March of '65 in both instances, I apologize for any confusion. I really don't care to discuss the merits of the picture one way or another, that was not the intention, purpose, or goal of this thread, and honestly only replied to your concerns out of politeness. The bottom line I feel is that yours and Rich's concerns are valid, and cause the image to certainly be suspect, especially without any concrete provenance. I personally don't feel that it can ever be decided completely, just what is more likely determined. We can't ask the original individual to stand up, take off his coat, and show it to us, so honestly we can never be 100% sure.

I have nothing really to gain from it being a CS soldier or a civilian, I simply thought it a good example of the jacket to begin the discussion that I had on hand while the article on the Southern Guard page was unavailable. Incidentally, now that their page is back up and running, I recommend to anyone who has not done so already read the wonderful article John Stillwagon wrote on the surviving jackets here:

http://www.southernguard.org/education/brooke.html

This article is a wonderful stepping off point for anyone who would like to learn about the jackets, and John's research into the origin of the Ross County jacket is fascinating and raises many questions.

I think that a central production facility being the source for the majority of these jackets is still a distinct possibility, as well as a pre-war civilian use of similar jackets making the pattern and construction widely available across the south and available to any local manufacturing concern. These two possibilities are certainly not mutually exclusive, as we know that some CS issue items (most notably trousers) were simply civilian patterns pressed into military use by the central depots. It is very possible that this could have been what happened with these simple garments.

It is unfortunate that no paper documentation concerning these garments has as yet come to light. Hopefully there is a document out there long forgotten in a collection that will give us a precious morsel of information, but unfortunately with the destruction of such a high number of government records at the end of the war, some parts of the history of these garments will leave us making educated guesses, perhaps forever.


Best,

[GreencoatCross]

Re: "The Simple Four Button Jacket"

For your consideration:

Firstly, a CDV of Sligo Iron Works employee George "Reb" Ford, taken between 1861 and 1865. Other employees of Sligo were photographed in their work clothing, about half of whom are wearing thick gray knit wool shirts. This man, however, is the only one photographed with a coat. At first glance the garment appeared to be a Federal-issue fatigue blouse but I do not feel that it is due to the lack of the kidney-shaped breast pocket and what appears to be a slash pocket on the wearer's left side of the coat. I do not feel that this is a "mass-produced" worker's jacket but instead I feel that it may simply be a second-hand, cast-off sack coat that the worker deemed fit for labor use.

Second, photographs of a mysterious CS garment worn by a 9th Tennessee soldier named George McDill. The story thus far goes that McDill wore this garment during the Perryville Campaign and that he was sent home shortly thereafter, possibly wearing this garment. The relatively good condition this garment is in lends some creedence to this notion. If anyone has further information regarding McDill's service, please post! The general appearance of this garment is similar to the CS four-button jacket but different at the same time; the cut appears to be closer to a stylish civilian garment or Federal fatigue blouse. Close photos of this garment show that the jeancloth is an oatmeal colored sheep's gray wool on a tan cotton warp (probably oxidized) and notes on the garment state that there is a full body lining cut from osnaburg. The construction appears to be completely hand-sewn, buttonholes are well-executed, and the buttons are CS general service "eagle" buttons very similar in design to Alabama Volunteer Corps buttons but without the "AVC" above the eagle.

And third, an image from EoG showing an unidentified Confederate wearing a four-button garment nearly identical in cut and style to the McDill jacket but with a bit of collar trim.

I believe these last two garments to be a completely different animal; they are stylistically different than the "CS four-button jacket" (T.V. Brooke, Ross Co., etc.) in many ways and the McDill jacket holds solid early provenance. Like the CS four-button jackets, these appear to have been produced in govt. manufactories and issued to "local" soldiers.

Too many questions....!!!!

OK....sorry everyone but it seems that I have exceeded my attachment quota and cannot post these fantastic images. Why are there limitations on this?

Brian White
Wambaugh, White, & Co.

https://www.wwandcompany.com

[roundshot]

Re: "The Simple Four Button Jacket"

The McDill jacket and a lookalike. Probably same genus, different species to the four button. Point is, the cut and styling in its many variations was probably more common than we have supposed.

[brown]

Re: "The Simple Four Button Jacket"

Great image. I really like the centered collar trim an the pocket flaps in the photo.
Thanks for posting (guys).
Lindsey

[GreencoatCross]

Re: "The Simple Four Button Jacket"

Thanks for posting those, they are the exact same images I wanted to post!

Brian White
Wambaugh, White, & Co.

https://www.wwandcompany.com

[GreencoatCross]

Re: "The Simple Four Button Jacket"

Nick et al,

I want to make it clear that the image Dan initially posted is a scan of a ferrotype that was once in my collection, and purchased by me. Yes, when I saw it I believed it could have possibly been an image of a soldier wearing a "CS four-button jacket" and I bought it. At the time of purchase I believed that the date on the image lent some creedence to my thought that it could be a confederate soldier. Among the other dated 1863 through 1865 ferrotypes (housed in identical pressed paper mattes) were Richmond, VA backmarked images. Later, under magnification and closer scrutiny, I found that the garment was indeed made from a shoddily woven cloth, possibly jean, and noted that some features were similar to those prevalent among surviving four-button jackets. After holding the image in my collection for some time I believed the garment to be a very poorly made, possibly second-hand lower class civilian or worker's garment that shared some features of the four-button jackets known to have been issued to CS soldiers.

Despite this, I don't want some kind of argument made here regarding this one particular image. All details, possibilites, and points of view have already been taken into consideration by me, the original owner, because I hate false advertising but also want to research every image that I own, be it a bad purchase or good purchase.

Brian White
Wambaugh, White, & Co.

https://www.wwandcompany.com

[Citizen_Soldier]

Re: "The Simple Four Button Jacket"

Greetings,
Joan Severa's book states that some early citizen's sack coats were made out of cotton blends, I would imagine that these could resemble a rough "Sesech" cloth in period photographs. The "Iowa sack coat" for example is made of fine grey linen woven on a brown cotton warp in a plain weave.

Darrek Orwig