Arsenal vs. Contract Federal Sack Coats

[Ian M.]

On this site and elsewhere on the web are a number of great articles regarding the enlisted man's Federal sack -- particularly the Schuykill Arsenal version which was the most heavily produced. Bottom line appears to be that most sutler made sacks today are (1) too heavy, being wool kersey like the frock, instead of flannel, and (2) too dark, being navy Federal blue as opposed to the generally lighter shade of the flannels.

A number of contractors supplied sacks to the war effort (e.g., J.T. Martin), frequently unlined, and others made to supply private purchase demand.

Question: does the standard reenactor sack of heavy dark blue kersey comply with typical "contract" sacks of the day? In other words, despite the fact that it is probably grossly over-represented in reenacting units compared to the S.A. and other arsenal sacks, was it still a typical enough variant to be "period correct" in its own right.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Arsenal vs. Contract Federal Sack Coats

No, the heavy wool kersey reproduction sack is made of overcoat material and it is not typical of the Federal sack coat of the Civil War period. It is a modern creation. The typical sack coat of the period (not just the widely copied JT Martin 1864) was of light enough material that it was said it could be balled up and fit into a forage cap. There is more to "getting it right" than just the correct weight wool material, though that is a good starting point.

See "For Fatigue Purposes" by Patrick Brown (Watchdog Publications). The book is pending Patrick's final approval for a second printing, but there may be some of the first edition still available. It contains a wealth of important information on the various Federal contract sack coats from 1857 to 1872.

I have had a couple Fed sacks, and one of the best so far is the CJ Daley Federal fatigue blouse (A-C approved vendor) that I got in 2004, and it just keeps getting better looking with time. The Watchdog tests sack coats from time to time, and frankly the majority do not make the grade for a variety of reasons, most commonly the wrong sort of cloth and incorrect construction.

[Tom Ezell]

Re: Arsenal vs. Contract Federal Sack Coats

Craig beat me to it, but the typical "sack coat" that you see at the average vendor on sutler row is not a good representation of the uniform fatigue blouse of the 1860-1870s. Sack coats are made out of flannel, not kersey, btw. And some vendors still use patterns that were drafted from pajama tops, rather than matched against an original garment...

Most of the more authentic vendors make their coats from better, lighter material that's much closer to the Army specifications.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: Arsenal vs. Contract Federal Sack Coats

Bottom line appears to be that most sutler made sacks today

By "sutler made" I suspect you mean "mainstream vendor". If so, that type of product probably has little place on this forum.

are (1) too heavy, being wool kersey like the frock, instead of flannel, and (2) too dark, being navy Federal blue as opposed to the generally lighter shade of the flannels.

Sack coats of the period were made of wool flannel (thinner and coarser material). Federal frock coats were made of wool broadcloth (heavier and finely woven material, and expensive then and now). Federal trousers of the day were made of kersey wool (heavy, but with a distincitve-appearing weave). Best bet is to talk about what the originals were like and forget about the "sutler row" variety of repros.

Also, all Federal trousers, jackets, etc. were dyed with indigo dye, and the longer one left a bolt of cloth in the dye the darker it became. Thus, Federal uniforms tended to reflect something of a variety of shade of blue.

A number of contractors supplied sacks to the war effort (e.g., J.T. Martin), frequently unlined, and others made to supply private purchase demand.

JT Martin provided a lot of clothing to the Yank war effort, that's for sure, but he's well known today mostly because there's a number of surviving, late-war items from his later contracts that a lot of vendors have reproduced. There were a good number of folks working under government contracts in the Civil War other than JT Martin.

As I have read, at least two-thirds, maybe as many as three-quarters, of Federal sack coats in the Civil War were LINED. Frankly, I'm writing this off the top of my head and could probably afford to check some sources to provide a more exact figure, but there ya have it. :)

I don't know that anyone has, or can, do a definitive study of private purchased garments.

Question: does the standard reenactor sack of heavy dark blue kersey comply with typical "contract" sacks of the day? In other words, despite the fact that it is probably grossly over-represented in reenacting units compared to the S.A. and other arsenal sacks, was it still a typical enough variant to be "period correct" in its own right.

No. Remember, contract-made garments still had to pass inspection. And at some Federal depots, like NYC, all the gear was made by contractors. The contractor-made stuff was essentially similar to the garments made in the Depots, for those Depots that had in-house garment-making capability. Of course, the subject of garment/uniform variations in the war is a huge topic, and this is a very basic post.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Arsenal vs. Contract Federal Sack Coats

Re: Lined v Unlined
JT Martin contracts :
Aug 26, 1862.....................50,000 lined
Sept 18, 1862....................75,000 lined
Nov 11, 1862......................50,000 lined
Feb 22,1864......................25,000 unlined, 60,000 lined
Mar 15, 1864.....................50,000 lined
Aug 12, 1864.....................50,000 lined

As far as the JT Martin Federal contracts I would say the ratio is more like 9:1 lined to unlined. As Kevin points out there were many other Federal sack coat contractors. Overall of the millions made a reliable figure based on all Federal contracts would probably be more like 2:1. And IIRC that is from CJ Daley in a thread some years back. It varied by depot and season of the year. Point being unlined were perhaps more common than the JT Martin contracts would suggest.The JT Martin sack coats are like the repro Enfields...vastly over-represented in the ACW hobby.

Kevin's broader point is well stated. The reason there are a select group of approved vendors on the A-C forum is the same reason the Watchdog does product reviews...that is to prevent the serious enactor from getting a Federal sack coat made of out winter weight greatcoat material.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Arsenal vs. Contract Federal Sack Coats

Hallo!

"...was it still a typical enough variant to be "period correct" in its own right."

This may not sound "right" or "nice" no matter what words I choose to say it... ;) :)

"Standard reenactor" and "mainstream sutler" in brief and to over-generalize, often have very little to do with "period correct" if one is talking about Civil War era garments.
As compared to "authentic campaigner" and the makers/vendors such as Approved Vendors and the makers/vendors of that quality who choose not to be on the Approved Vendor List who based their work on original items for the stricter needs and wants of a different Community.

IMHO, for those that "it matters," we should strive to be educated customers and informed consumers- as well as strive to know why a vendor or product is "the best" moreso than who just makes "the best."

IMHO, all too often, csome makers and vendors often found at mainstream Sutler's Rows have been using the "contractor variation" ploy to excuse and defend poorer quality and "less faithful to the original" items for many years.

Caveat emptor to avoid Carpe effluvium... ;) :(

Curt

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Arsenal vs. Contract Federal Sack Coats

Curt is right. This cozy corner of the universe exists for those for whom such things matter. I have a fairly extensive collection of quotes compiled over the years from Field Merchants caught in (ahem) less than truthful statements.

There is probably not a good reason to ever post these as most will be all too familiar. I have come to really enjoy that moment of dawning comprehension when they realize that there are those for whom "that dog won't hunt", and do know better.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Arsenal vs. Contract Federal Sack Coats

I probably mentioned this before, but the OR (Series III, Volume V, p. 285) gives the total number of certain articles purchased by the arsenals over the course of the war. It omits items made of material purchased separately, but I believe that these would not significantly affect the overall numbers, so great they are.

Lined sack coats: 3,685,755 (61%)
Unlined sack coats: 1,809,270 (30%)
Knit sack coats: 530,144 (9%)
Total: 6,025,169 (100%)

To complicate things a bit, the Steubenville Arsenal coat, which is lined in the sleeves only, appears to have been listed as "lined", which raises the possibility that others of the 60% listed as "lined" were only partially so.

Interest in an authentic knitted sack coat has been stymied by the absence of any actual survivors. They must have been quite comfy.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Arsenal vs. Contract Federal Sack Coats

So over the six million + produced, about 2:1 (lined to unlined), with about 10% in the "other" (knit) categoy is about right? Good info to know. Gee, I would sure like to see what a knit sack coat looked like...

[Ian M.]

Re: Arsenal vs. Contract Federal Sack Coats

Thanks all. Good solid discussion from my PoV and very helpful. Hope the rest of this board derives the same value of information sharing that I have from these posts.

One observation: for an item so ubiquitous as the sack, it seems somewhat odd that more faithful repros are so hard to come by except from a relative handful of serious, dedicated artisans (another word to differentiate on "Sutlers Row"?). Unless I'm missing something, is using flannel instead of coat wool, and paying a little more attention to cut and color, so much more costly than a "mainstream vendor" can justify and still turn a profit? Oh well, it's a mystery to me and perhaps one I shall never solve without a few more "gotchas". Fortunately, this one didn't cost me much and my interest has been more towards "getting it right" than trying to justify an investment.

Again, my thanks to all contributors in this thread.

[Agate]

Re: Arsenal vs. Contract Federal Sack Coats

This is taken from an article I'm preparing on the history of the John Thomas Martin company that will be featured on a web site I'm helping to create devoted to the study of uniform and equipage and to make its debut sometime later this year.

The following does not include contracts from "John Y. Martin", "Martin and Bros.", nor "L.T. Martin". It has been suggested that all may too have played a role.

The following is taken from Exec. Doc. 84, 38th Congress, 2d Session, "Contracts made by the Quartermaster's Department". Submitted March 3, 1865.-Laid on the table and ordered to be printed.

"An abstract of certain contracts made by the QMD, 1864-65"

John. T. Martin contracts-

NY-Dec., 5 1863 20,000 greatcoats, 5,000 cavalry trousers
NY-Dec., 31 1863 10,000 cav greatcoats, 20,000 inf greatcoats, 20,000 inf trousers
NY-Jan., 19 1864 5,000 cav trousers
NY-May 3, 1864 10,000 engineer overalls
NY-May 3, 1864 150,000 prs. inf trousers
NY-Aug 12, 1864 100,000 pairs inf trousers
NY-Aug 12, 1864 100,000 lined blowses
NY-Aug 25, 1864 100,000 domestic flannel shirts, 6 1/2 oz. at $3.01
100,000 domestic flannel shirts, 5 1/2 oz. at $2.56
200,000 domestic flannel shirts at $2.36
NY-Aug 25, 1864 100,000 inf trousers
Phila-Apr., 15, 1864 25,000 inf trousers
Phila-July 25, 1864 100,000 blue sack coats lined
Cin-March 20, 1864 50,000 cav overcoats
Cin-May 31, 1864 300,000 yards gray mixed shirting flannel
Cin-July 15, 1864 50,000 pairs inf trousers
Cin-Sept., 3, 1864 100,000 grey flannel shirts at $2.44 ea.
200,000 grey flannel shirts at $2.57 ea.
Cin-Oct., 18, 1864 100,000 pairs trousers mtd
Cin-Oct., 18, 1864 250,000 sack coats lined
Cin-Nov., 10, 1864 20,000 woolen blankets
NY-Dec.27, 1864 10,000 uniform artillery coats
Cin-Jan., 2, 1865 250,000 pairs inf trousers
NY-Dec., 21, 1864 1,000 lined blouses
NY-Feb., 4, 1865 285,000 lined blouses

Understand, this is an abstract and most certainly does not contain all contracts made by the QMD during this period, nor does it contain reference to any goods which may have been purchased on the open market.

You will note the 3,685,755 lined blouses (as recorded in the OR's) that Mr. Schaffner has kindly provided.

With the 335,000 Martin lined blouses made under contract as provided by Mr. Barry (and if you could reference those Mr. Barry I would be obliged) we find that Martin produced 1,071,000 lined blouses. That's what we know. No Exec Doc for 1862 nor most of 1863 exists, and I can reference at least one Martin contract for infantry jackets dating back as early Aug., 1861 to Fremont's Western Department. That he was producing before Dec. 5, 1863 is well known.

True, there were producers of lined blouses other than J. T. Martin that provided to the USQMD. However, only a couple came close in matching the sheer output of this contractor.

When we consider that better than one fourth of what was produced (according to these numbers) regarding lined blouses came from this single company (and keeping in mind the period of which we know little or nothing about) IMHO, the Martin blouse is a solid candidate for ones impression for both East and West. And disagree that they are vastly over represented.

One might argue that these are almost all later war, however we simply don't know what he may or may not have been producing during all of 1862 and most of 1863.

I'm all for someone popping out an 1862 Joseph Lee sack coat or an 1863 arsenal made Cincinnati blouse, but if any are known to exist they haven't as yet been reproduced (the Cincinnati blouse featured in EOG is an Oct., 18, 64 Martin, btw). We have few choices in the overall scheme of things.

The Martin blouse is our best candidate for anything other than an impression where an "SA" blouse may too be appropriate. But that isn't everywhere. The SA blouse is not appropriate during all periods of the conflict in all departments of the USQMD.

I remain,

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Arsenal vs. Contract Federal Sack Coats

Hallo!

Herr Ian...

IMHO, it can be a Learning Process or Growth Process in one's personal evolution and development toward the right side of the Alphabet (so-called F/M/C/P/H/A Model or Paradigm).
When it comes to the Civil War material culture, a key factor in clothing and gear starts with "faithfulness" to three basic elements for factors:

1. Raw materials
2. Patterns, forms, and models
3. Period methods construction

IMHO, the makers that research and replicate (use) these produce the most "faithful" wares for the more demanding of the Civil War Community.

From time to time I receive e-mails from India and Pakistan such as:

Dear,sir

Hope this will find you best of your health & prosperity.
First thanks to favorable response.
All of our products civil war wear made from 100% WOOL. It has the Correct Stand Up Collar. It is Fully Lined with 100% Cotton Cloth as were the originals and quality is excellent. If you are interesting in our products, feel free to contact with us at mirasif@skt.comsats.net.pk

NO:1 Sack Coat made of wool. $.18.00/
No:2 Frock Coat made of wool. $22.00
No:3 Great Coat made of wool. $29.00
No:4 Shell Jacket made of wool. $20.00
No:5 Trouser made of wool. $.16.00
No;6Mounted Service Jacket made of wool.$21.00
No:7 Cotton shirt. $6.00
No:8 Falanan shirt. $8.00
No9 Boe made of cotton. $2.50
No:10 Saspander mad of canves.$3.00
Note; Actully we are manufacturer only civil war clothing
This price list without rent.

Regards,
mirasif.

Curt

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Arsenal vs. Contract Federal Sack Coats

Hallo!

NT

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: Arsenal vs. Contract Federal Sack Coats

I wonder though if we aren't overlooking something very simple in the 'lined' v 'unlined' coat argument .... weather.

In CRRC2 the article on coats notes that unlined caots were more commonly issued in warm weather than lined coats. He cites examination of a number of AoP regimental records to draw this conclusion.

In the same article he cites an example of soldier ripping the lining out of his coat once the weather got warm.

Is it not possible that the coat cycle went something like this. Issued lined coat, weather got warm, soldier rips lining out of coat, weather gets cold soldier draws new lined coat.

Or issued unlined coat in warm weather, weather gets cold, soldier draws new lined coat and then starts the above mentioned cycle.

Therefore couldn't the greater demand for lined coats be greater due to their higher versatility where as an unlined coat was only good for warm weather (unless you're a hot blooded thing like me)?

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: Arsenal vs. Contract Federal Sack Coats

On this site and elsewhere on the web are a number of great articles regarding the enlisted man's Federal sack -- particularly the Schuykill Arsenal version which was the most heavily produced.

Does anybody have any figures to back up or dispute this assertion?

It seems to me that the "contractors" would have the capability to massively out produce SA on just sheer production capabilites alone, never mind their willingness to use machine sewing on the seams v SA preference for hand sewing.