English Imported Gear

[Matt Woodburn]

Re: Isaac Campbell Knapsack Hardware

Try Cody Mobley, The Company Tailor or Jim Kindred, Military Warehouse.

[DougCooper]

Re: Isaac Campbell Knapsack Hardware

Hanover Brass has them as well.

[DougCooper]

Re: Help with I&C Knapsack

Rob (and all) - a check of Nick ************'s site shows the mess kit cover. http://www.nj************.com//OSCom...f172075aa70c4e

I have one of these and it is superb. This is one of those hard to find and vastly under-represented items. Nick mentions that the strap for the kit is sold separately so recommend you contact him (did not see it on the site).

The mess kit fits neatly on top the knapsack via the buckles described. On occasion I have tossed it inside the pack when room permitted. Remember that you can store food or other items inside the mess kit as well - a handy thing to do.

[Jefferson Guards]

Re: Help with I&C Knapsack

An interpretation question...

For those of you with access to the McRae papers, are there multiple invoices (besides the one that's been posted) that specifically mention mess kits? Or, do the majority simply say "knapsack, complete" or words to that effect?

There are multiple invoices in the McRae papers that mention mess kits, but there are also communications in the Offical Records that mention them also.

[wade03]

Enfield bayonet frog?

List,
I'm not sure wether someone has brought this up before, if so please direct me to where it is. I was wondering if the "popular Mainstream" enfield bayonet frog(sits verticle on the belt and has a buckle to hold the bayonet in place) was used in the war by confederates. Anyone?

[1stMaine]

Re: Enfield bayonet frog?

Comrade,

I would suggest you use the search function with the words "english accoutrements" etc, on this site. there are several threads dealing with these items.

Respects,

[Ken Knopp]

New article published on Confederate leather....

For those of you interested in 19th century or Confederate leather, David Jarnagin and I (Ken R Knopp) have finally published our article (CONFEDERATE LEATHER, BLACK OR BROWN, HOW AND WHERE?) in the current (August) issue of the NORTH SOUTH TRADER’’S MAGAZINE (offices located in Orange, Va.).
We feel this article makes public some very important new information relative to leather colors and types used in the manufacture of Confederate accoutrements and saddlery. Helpful at the very least, to identifying leather origins both domestic (southern or northern tanned) and imported. It also provides an overview of Confederate leather production and the very complicated and largely misunderstood 19th century tanning processes.
Due to the competitive nature of the leather business and the complex chemical reactions involved (often not understood even by the tanners themselves), 19th century tanners were often very secretive about their trade practices. Moreover, modern vegetable tanning process are vastly different today leaving little opportunity for comparison. As a result the information we discovered was difficult to unravel, understand and then to explain in laymen’s terms. Because of the above, sadly, much of it is also likely lost forever.
Our view is that for years collectors, reenactors and historians have been laboring under significant misconceptions and are generally very ill informed about leather particularly about the cause/effects of leather colors and dyes. Another example of what we have learned is that a thorough understanding of war time leather tanning and finishing can sometimes enable one to identify what kind and often the origins (Northern, Southern or imported British) of the leather used in an artifact. This can go along way to collaborating legitimate artifacts and maybe more importantly, identifying fakes. This article begins to address “some” of these questions however, it is not meant to be an in depth study but rather a general overview.
Several years of study went into this effort. The documentation used came from several rare 19th century tanning manuals/books, CS & US archival records, knowledgeable collectors as well as wonderful insights provided by one of the oldest and most experienced “leather men” in American today. For us, one of the more interesting aspects to come out of this study was the discovery that leather tanning in its day was both a science and an art form. Tanning required considerable in depth knowledge of intricate chemical processes and their reactions. Considering that tanners started with raw, quickly rotting hides from cattle, horses (and a vast array of other animals) and ended with any one of a wide variety of finely finished multiple use products, tanning in that day was truly an art form akin to making quality jewelry, furniture or other high skill craft items.
This is the second of what we hope with be many similar articles. Our first leather article was published in the Company Journal of Military Historians (Hemlock Leather- The Federal Ordnance Department’’s Other War. Journal of the Military Collector & Historian, The Company of Military Historians, Washington DC., Vol. 57, No. 1 -- Spring 2005). More are in production.

We are promoting the publishing of this article as a means to educate and share information. There are no commissions nor any payment made whatsoever for our efforts. This is truly a labor of love. In addition, we do not represent this article as the “end all” on the subject and like all published historical pieces there will be mistakes. We accept the responsibility for those. We hope you will pick up a copy and enjoy it for its intended purpose that is, another brick in the building of historical enlightenment. I enclose some “brief”” excerpts from the article:

Ken R Knopp

As any artifact collector or reenactor knows there are two primary colors when it comes to Civil War era leather- black and brown (“russet”). It was thought for many years that Confederate leather equipment was russet and all black leather was Federal...... But what about the different shades of russet that are found from chocolate to light brown to yellow? Can we tell what is more likely to be Confederate?.........

.....a basic understanding of the vegetable tanning operation is needed..... Nineteenth century tan yards had three distinct departments, each designed to transform the raw hide as it passes on its way to becoming useable leather..........

........In all vegetable leather tanning, then as now, color is nothing more than the natural color of the leather after the tanning processes; that is to say, whatever color the bark gives to the leather. Various barks were used but by far, the two most common in the 19th century were oak and hemlock tree bark. Each strikes a unique color and ......

...........oak tanned leather could be dyed a permanent deep, rich black; however,........ Due to it acidic nature hemlock tanned leather could not permanently accept black dye solutions. Despite tanners routinely cheating the process with special paints or dyes, Hemlock tanned leather would always eventually (often quickly) fade to a chocolate brown color so often seen in surviving artifacts. This was a big problem for the Federal Ordnance Bureau.......

.......Although official regulations both North and South prescribed leather be dyed black, delivery receipts from many southern tanneries contracted by the Confederacy suggest that this was not routine. In general, early war production tended to include more black dyed leather while russet was far more common later in the conflict. This was especially true of..............

........another dark brown russet color similar to faded hemlock and quite often seen in Confederate equipment comes from imported English leather (sometimes called “London” leather). This is not a black faded to brown leather but a unique, rich brown color tanned overseas from English oak bark and stained using a staining formula different but ...............

........For the South, obtaining leather regardless of color was an incessant problem. The South’s domestic manufacture during the war was severely limited by a lack of infrastructure, labor and transportation.................

...Following President Davis’ directive, the Quartermaster Bureau, with the responsibility for providing shoes and transportation equipment, was given top priority, while the responsibilities of the Ordnance Bureau: cartridge boxes, cap boxes, belts, saddles, bridles, artillery harness, etc., would follow. ..............

......Forced to do more with less, one option available to the Ordnance Bureau was to simply replace leather with cloth. By mid-1863, this heavy cotton cloth, "domestic", was commonly used both East and West. Canvas duck or cloth stitched in three to four thicknesses, then painted with lamp black and finally varnished with one or more coats of linseed oil was used for waist belts, cartridge box belts, bridle reins, cap boxes, ground cloths and later, saddle coverings, skirts and saddle bags...............

...........However, clearly of far greater impact was the leather imported from England via Bermuda and the Bahamas. Shipping records, including those at the Ordnance Bureau’s main port of entry at Wilmington, show huge numbers of “cases”, “bundles”, “bales”, “boxes” and “rolls” of leather came through the Blockade throughout the war. Still more ..........the sheer number of listings in foreign import records, cargo manifests, voluminous War Department correspondence and post war accounts suggest......................

...........Nevertheless, in spite of all of these trials, the South never failed to provide enough leather to manufacture an adequate supply of military equipment and accoutrements. On the last day of 1864 Chief of Ordnance Josiah Gorgas wrote the Secretary of War that...........

......In summary, the leather the Confederacy produced clearly differed from that of the Federals. While most Federal accoutrements were made of hemlock or oak tanned leather and dyed to black (albeit with hemlock the color was sometimes only temporary), the majority of Confederate domestic tanned accoutrement leather was.................


Thank you!!


Ken R Knopp

[1stMaine]

Re: New article published on Confederate leather....

Comrade,

No, Ken, thank you, and Mr. Jarnagin, for all your efforts. We are all the richer because of your work.

Respects,

[VaTrooper]

Re: New article published on Confederate leather....

Coincidently I picked this issue up today at the Richmond show because the CS tongue I dug at Brandy Station is in there, Pg 35 bottom left corner. But it was a plus to see the leather article in there as well.

[Iron Scout]

Re: New article published on Confederate leather....

Ken,

Many thanks for sharing tidbits out of this fine article. This is truly an amazing piece of historical documentation and I thank you and Dave for adding to the "record". I'm really suprised more folks didn't respond to your post though, but alas, I expect such things.

I'd also like to begin a seperate discussion about the CS use and importation of white buff too; both in bulk and in accoutrements. There seems to be a mentality that buff accoutrements are incorrect for a CS impression. Not saying they were everywhere, but documentation and extant items do exist. Thoughts?

Thanks again for your efforts in advancing our knowledge base in this area!

Regards,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[Jimmayo]

Re: New article published on Confederate leather....

Ken,

I'm really suprised more folks didn't respond to your post though, but alas, I expect such things.

Neill
The lack of response may be due to folks not getting thier issue yet and being able to read the article. The US mail works in mysterious ways when it comes to getting the latest issue of the Trader. I have had friends less than a mile away get their magazine a week or two earlier than me and vice versa.

I am waiting by the mailbox for my issue but who knows how long that wait will be.

[1st Maine Trooper]

Re: New article published on Confederate leather....

While I would love to read the article, I do not subscribe to the magazine that it is published in, so I will have to hold my comments until I can locate a copy for purchase locally. I am certain that it is full of usefull and pertinent information.

Dave Myrick

[Ken Knopp]

Re: New article published on Confederate leather....

Neill,

Thank you for your kind words. Sorry I took so long to respond. I had to get some time to discuss this with David Jarnagin and to look through my records (I have the correspondence, vouchers, invoices etc. for about 70 or so Confederate leather providers taken from the CONFEDERATE PAPERS RELATING TO CITIZENS OR BUSINESS FIRMS, National Archives Collection.). Honestly, I did not take the time to look through them all (they are quite extensive.) however, of those I did and from my notes I find very little (virtually nothing) on the tanning, supply or importing of white buff leather in/to the Confederacy. One record from the account book of Capt. John Payne, comprising the imported Ordnance Stores (1863-1865) at the bureau’s main port of entry at Wilmington NC. noted no buff but does show some “buffalo” hides. These were likely not buff but rather real Buffalo possibly imported through Bermuda from Canada or the even the United States via Nova Scotia- a somewhat rare but occasional occurrence.
David and I discussed the use of white buff and we could think of no general use for it in the Confederacy other than possibly some “special” needs or orders. Black or natural buff may have been imported when available and could have had some uses in accoutrements such as was done in the Federal army. Likewise, we also noted that some little amounts of patent leather that came through the Blockade would have limited use excepting maybe kepi brims. Naturally, as we are dealing with limited surviving archival records we are speculating about all of this. Perhaps the McRae papers could shed some light on this subject.

For general knowledge, the following excerpt from David Jarnagin provides an overview of 19the century buff leather:
Buff this leather original name was "losh" or "lash. I have seen it spelled both ways. Buff-leather for belts and Military purposes was not from buffalo hides (This mistake is found in many different books even ones printed during the period.) Rather, buff leather was tanned from cow hides. These hide were often selected for buff finishing because of bacterial damage or skin defects since the grain surface would be removed during the tanning process.
The leather was subjected to a long lime and then sanded with a pumice stone or split by machine after they were invented. The oldest way is the sanding process, and was called buffing by tanners. So the question is: Was buff leather named for the sanding process or the color, since buff color is a yellowish gold color? I am not sure at this time.
From reading records we know that buff leather could only be tanned during the spring and fall. This is due to the liming process that requires mild weather. This kind of tanning was a difficult and time consuming process. White buff was used extensively by the military prior to the Civil War. After the Mexican war buff orders fell off dramatically. When the army wanted more in the 1850's tanners were generally not interested in overhauling production for limited contracts. This is one reason that the army switched to waxed leather in 1858. In a letter from G. Bomford Bt Col. of April 17, 1828 states that: As this kind of leather (buff) is unsaleable, except for the public service. This suggests that tanners were not willing to stock buff leather due to the lack of sales other than the military (Ordnance Dept. ).

Buff leather is found in three colors:
1. “Natural” or “Buff””: this is when no whiteners have been added to change the color from the natural color given by the oils during the tanning process. Nevertheless, I found that it was often stained a distinctive yellow in order to give a more pleasant color to the leather. This may be one reason that it was difficult to get buff all in the same, consistent color.
2. ““Whitened buff””: buff leather with whiteners added in order to give it a much lighter/whiter color. This color was not originally a pure white but tended to be in the range of a yellowish white or what we might call an antique white. However, it could be whitened to a bright white. Originally "whitened buff" was whitened with "Paris Whitening" this was a white chalk. [ I have add this term for clarity. The army preferred "whitened buff" as buff. For more information on these two terms check out page 261 in Paul D. Johnson's book on "Civil War Cartridge Boxes of the Union Infantryman"]
3. ““Blackened Buff””: This was buff leather dyed black on one side. This leather was also stained in order to give it a yellowish color as can be seen on the back of some artifacts.

Buff leather according to the Ordnance Dept. should be of a firm consistency, and should not be Spongy.

Anyway, I know this did not help you much but it may be of some use. Thank you for your kind assistance to us.

Ken R Knopp

[Jimmayo]

CS overcoat

Just received my issue today. I haven't read the article yet but what caught my eye while paging through was the picture of CS veteran Henry Wood is his army overcoat. Could this be one of the English army cloth overcoats?

[Ken Knopp]

Re: New article published on Confederate leather....

I must correct a mistake I have made.....After discussion with David Jarnagin we have concluded the “Buffalo hides” I noted in an earlier post as coming through the blockade to Wilmington was more likely simply imported British “buff” leather NOT Buffalo. As stated previously, then as now many people (including Ordnance officers of the period) erroneously believed buff leather came from Buffalos. There are a lot of reasons for this misunderstanding including the obvious. While I am still certain some real “Buffalo” hides came into the Confederacy, this particular entry in the Wilmington records was for buff. More importantly perhaps, the fact remains buff leather is NOT from Buffalos.
Most collectors and reenactors are familiar with seeing white, brown or black buff leather on original Federal accoutrements (and occasionally Confederate). These are easily recognized in any color by their “rough out” surface to the finish. If the “correct” leather, color or “look” of your equipment leather is important to you (or maybe your just curious) a bit more new information (and summarization) on leather tanning in general (and buff leather in particular) may be helpful here.

All fresh hides that were to be made into leather (any kind) came to the mid 19th century tanning house as either “raw”, “dried” or “dried & salted”. Most common were “dried and salted hides” which was done to preserve them in shipment/storage. Once at the tannery, it would often take 7 -10 days to re-soften the hide before the tanning process could even begin. During the vegetable tanning process (Oak or Hemlock bark tanned), the best hides were chosen to be made into high quality russet leather and lessor quality for staining or dyeing because defects and blemishes could be covered up. As for buff, since the grain surface would be removed during the tanning process, hides that were selected to be made into buff leather were often the worst ones having significant bacterial damage or skin defects. For a good general overview of the 19th century tannery operation check out our article CONFEDERATE LEATHER, BLACK, BROWN, HOW & WHERE (includes color photos!) in this month’s NORTH SOUTH TRADER MAGAZINE (Ph: 540-672-4845)
For tanning buff leather, cow hides were chosen and subjected to a long lime which could only be done in mild weather when the lime would act slowly to destroy the grain surface. It was then sanded with a pumice stone or split by leather splitting machine (the surface was simply cut off) after that machine was invented. The oldest way is the sanding process, and was called “buffing” by tanners. After tanning, the hide was “finished” (on the rough side) by the curriers with various oils and/or dye treatments. Buff leather was called a “hide” and not a “side” as other finished leather was referred to.
While often left “natural” in civilian use, for the military it was dyed either black or white and generally used for accoutrement belts and slings. As most of you know, white buff was used extensively by the military prior to the Civil War. After the Mexican War buff orders fell off dramatically. When the army wanted more in the 1850's tanners were generally not interested in overhauling their production for limited contracts. So, as I stated previously, this is one reason why in 1858 the army switched to “waxed” leather (leather finished smooth over the rough surface side) for its belts and slings. As a result, buff leather did not make up a large part of war time Federal accoutrement production.
NOTE: As for other Federal “war time” leather accoutrements (such as cartridge boxes and cap boxes) “bridle” leather was usually used and finished (dyed black and “sleeked” or “jerked”) on the grain NOT rough side. Most would have been oak or Hemlock bark tanned (Hemlock trees were dominant in large parts of the north at that time) then dyed to black. However, Hemlock tanning does not bond well with the iron mordants used to dye leather black so it would often turn brown (kind of a chocolate) -sometimes rather quickly. (For more information on this problem see our article: HEMLOCK LEATHER- THE FEDERAL ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT'S OTHER WAR. Journal of the Military Collector & Historian, The Company of Military Historians, Washington DC., Vol. 57, No. 1 -- Spring 2005). So, it would not have been unusual to see dark brown accoutrements on Federal soldiers during the war. A look wholly unknown among reenactors today.



Today, buff leather artifacts can found in three colors:
1. “Blackened Buff”: Used on pre war and a lot of war time Federal accoutrements. This was buff leather dyed black on one (the rough) side. This leather was also stained in order to give it a yellowish color as can be seen on the back of some artifacts. Black buff was dyed using iron mordants but with additional logwood used in the process. Unfortunately, when exposed to prolonged light the logwood oxidizes and the bond with the iron breaks down causing the black to turn brown just as often happens with hemlock tanned leather and noted above. Brown buff is nothing more than blackened buff that has faded to brown. Hence, you often see buff artifacts that are brown in color. However, this would not happen to “all” black dyed buff leather. A good tanner of the period would often use a special finish on the black buff to seal the dye which is why you often see buff leather artifacts that have NOT turned brown. Confused? Well, here is a bit more ....
Buff leather that was once whitened could not be dyed black without first removing the whiteners. This was an intricate process to restore the tannin so the iron mordants could bond with tannin and turn it black. Naturally, it could only be done by experienced tanners.

2. “Whitened buff”: The most commonly recognized buff leather and used extensively on pre war Federal accoutrements. This type buff leather had whiteners added in order to give it a much lighter/whiter color. This color was not originally a pure white but tended to be in the range of a yellowish white or what we might call an antique white. However, it could be whitened to a bright white. Originally "whitened buff" was whitened with "Paris Whitening" this was a white chalk. The army preferred the term "whitened buff". For more information on this check out page 261 in Paul D. Johnson's book, CIVIL WAR CARTRIDGE BOXES OF THE UNION INFANTRYMAN.

NOTE: In either black or white the Federal Ordnance Dept was particular about their buff leather. It had to come from the tanner in firm consistency and not spongy. After issue, white and black buff was often “touched up” from time to time by soldiers to keep its even color and appearance.

Whitened buff was also used extensively by the British military of the period (albeit sometimes “finished” differently) and some may have found their way into the Confederacy. For example, we know that some accoutrements that came into the South were made of white buff such as the 1845 (often called “angled”) cap pouch that was worn on the shoulder belt. It also remains possible though not clear that some “hides” of blackened buff may have come in to be made into infantry/cavalry accoutrement belts. However, due to its rough out surface (and as with Federal equipment), except maybe during emergency shortages it is doubtful buff was ever used in the making of Confederate cavalry or artillery horse equipments.

3. “Natural” or “Buff””: Often used in civilian usage such as for belts. This is when no whiteners or black dyes have been added to change the color from the natural color given by the oils during the tanning process. Nevertheless, it was often stained a distinctive yellow in order to give a more pleasant color to the leather.

Sorry to go on like this. More can or should be written on the significance of military leather tanning and production but, neither time nor space allow. Please note that leather tanning in that period was a dirty, difficult and time consuming process and, far more chemically complex than we can easily summarize here. In closing, I would like to humbly add that while I am a researcher and writer on “some” war time military equipment I am not the real expert on 19th century leather production. That would be David Jarnagin. In my opinion, he knows more about this subject than anyone that I am aware of today.

Is this information important? Probably not to most of you but we feel it provides some clarity and might be useful (or at least interesting) to those of you curious about the origins and, the “why” or “how” of 19th century military leather accoutrements. For more extensive information we urge you to read any of the articles/excerpts cited above.

Ken R Knopp
(And For David Jarnagin)