Federal Frock Coats and Shell Jackets in the field

[ironbrigade6]

hello all,
After a conversation with a pard, I was wondering about how prevalent Frock Coats and Shell Jackets would have been worn into battle and over all in general in the later part of the war (late 63-65). After searching on past threads and seeing some photographs it appears that Frock Coats and Shell Jackets were still in use, but I was not sure if this was only because of the photographs being taken behind the lines or if these photographs were the exception rather than the rule.

Thank you for any help you can give,

[FortyRounder]

Re: Federal Frock Coats and Shell Jackets in the field

I don't have any hard data for you, but two good sources of images are the Library of Congress Selected Civil War Photographs site: http://international.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/cwphome.html, and the National Archives site which has the huge list of links to their collection of photographs (I've misplaced that link). My apologies if you're already aware of these resources. Most of the LoC images are dated, although the dates are not always correct.

One photo that comes to mind shows Co. D, 149th Pennsylvania "Bucktails" in, I believe, September 1864. It can be found in the Schroeder "Pennsylvania Bucktails" book. Most of the company are wearing black hats and frock coats.

[Horace]

Re: Federal Frock Coats and Shell Jackets in the field

I wonder about this too. Especially about what they were issued. In theory, everyone should have had a dress uniform and a fatigue uniform. Were they issued both? Did it vary? If a man was wearing a frock on campaign, had he shipped his fatigue coat into storage, or was the frock the only coat he possessed when the campaign started? Were frocks and fatigue indiscriminately issued?

While I'm at it, were shell/state jackets considered a fatigue item, a dress item or both?

I'm guessing that the choice of what was acceptable to wear was primarily up to the dispostion of the higher regimental officers. In the same LoC collection that has the picture of the Bucktails in their individualized hats, there are images of the 93rd New York taken about the same time, and there's almost no deviation from forage caps, but I think their jackets are a mixed batch of styles. It would seem that someone must have issued an order about headwear in one regiment but not in another..

[FortyRounder]

Re: Federal Frock Coats and Shell Jackets in the field

I believe Billings in Hardtack and Coffee mentions soldiers having to choose between the "dress" coat and the sack when they marched out on campaign, although in some regiments it was determined by the commander. For example, the 14th New York heavy Artillery were issued the full uniform--including frocks, hats with trimming, white gloves, shoulder scales and neck stocks--to wear while serving in the New York Harbor defenses. The limited evidence suggests that these items were put into storage and the men donned sack coats and forage caps (with numbers and artillery insignia) when they left to join Grant in April 1864.

The regimental books of the 14th NYHA, and the records of the New York City provost marshal, indicate that by 1863 new soldiers at the draft and recruit rendezvous, at least in NYC and Elmira, were issued a basic uniform of sack coat, trowsers, cap, 2 shirts, 2 pairs socks, 2 pairs drawers and 1 pair shoes, and perhaps eating utensils, haversacks, etc., before being shipped to their regiments. This varied depending on what was available.

[orngblsm]

Re: Federal Frock Coats and Shell Jackets in the field

My research has shown that the jackets regiments were wearing came down to two things, availability and preferance of the regimental commander. In October of 1862, the 1 month old 124th New York, at the colonel's orders, put their frock coats into storage and marched into virginia for the first time in "light marching order", wearing sack coats. Fast forward 2 years and a winter camp photograph of the whole regiment shows still 98% of privates wearing sack coats, though oddly every NCO is wearing a Frock. Now on the contrary, Privates Thomas Rodman and Joseph Johnson both complained about the restrictivness of their frock coast on the march to gettysburg. In March of 1864, Pvt. Henry Howell noted that the regiment was prepared for a review and the regiment donned their frock coats and were issued white gaitors. These instances lend me to think that both jackets were available to men of the 124th throughout the war. Perhaps it was smart, on the colonel's part, to have the frocks put into storage rather than force the men to carry them. This would prevent men from throwing them away to lighten their loads.

As to your question whether or not more formal jackets would have been worn into battle. I believe the jacket that would have been worn would have been the one the men had been marching in. Rarely, in my research have I come accross an instance where a regiment stopped and prepared for battle. Rather they would have prepared for the campaign days or weeks prior.

However, I never deal in absloutes in this hobby, becasue there is always an exception waiting right around the corner....

[Milliron]

Re: Federal Frock Coats and Shell Jackets in the field



These guys are all wearing frock coats.

[John of the Skulkers Mess]

Re: Federal Frock Coats and Shell Jackets in the field

There is a wartime diary/letters of a 33rd Ill. Inf. soldier describing his 'load' during the Vicksburg campaign and he mentions wearing a dress coat.

[roundshot]

Re: Federal Frock Coats and Shell Jackets in the field

The following description, written by Federal Col. Charles E. Sprague in Capt. E. A. Nash’s History of the 44th New York Volunteer Infantry, provides an interesting view of that unit as it appeared prior to the Battle of Chancellorsville and may serve to answer your question: “As we stood in line in marching order we were a fair specimen of an American regiment. We stood about three hundred rank and file. Few regiments had anything like the nominal strength which a regiment should have. We were a sunburned, hearty set of fellows; we looked as if we could eat a square meal whenever we got one . . . We were not punctilious about regulations as to dress. Our regulation uniforms of semi-zouave pattern had been turned in, and we had frock coats, blouses, or jackets, just as it happened – anything blue would do. In hats and caps there was also much variety; the hideous regular army cloth cap, with slanting peak, which some turned up and some turned down – each way it looked worse; or the more knobby French shape, with straight visor or the McClellan cap, with top falling forward – these had been sent on from home or purchased when on furlough; or the army black felt, which was generally worn with the crown depressed in the center; or other varieties of black soft hats, which were worn in spite of regulations. But every one had on his cap or hat the red Maltese cross, the badge of our division [1st Division, 5th Corps, Army of the Potomac]. Some had leggings, some had not; some old hands were in favor of stuffing the trousers into the stockings and tying them with strings. The broad shoes furnished by the government and usually called “gunboats” were the most fashionable foot wear; this was apart of the uniform which private enterprise did not much improve on. Only one thing about our get up would have pleased a military critic – our guns were clean and bright.”

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Federal Frock Coats and Shell Jackets in the field

I think that quote about Chancellorsville holds for the rest of the war. Here's something from late '64 that seems to say that some soldiers sent their coats (vs. blouses) to the rear and some wore them on campaign:

“Monday, Novr 7th Our overcoats came up to day that we had left at Brandy Station April 20th. I went over and took charge of Co 'K's' boxes. I opened them and took out 68 overcoats, some dress Coats, shirts, Drawers, &c., and we have only 17 men left here in Co K to take them and some of them did not send coats to the rear. 70 men killed, wounded, sick and missing since May 3rd. It makes me sad to read over the names & know so many of them will never say here or present again."

From: The Civil War Notebook of Daniel Chisholm, W. Springer Menge and J. August Shimrak, eds., Ballantine Books, New York, 1989.

In a curious case involving a 9 month regiment, the 129th PVI, both the colonel and lieutenant colonel were charged by General Humphreys in January 1863 with "conduct subversive of good order and military discipline, tending to mutiny" for refusing to requisition frock coats so their regiment could "appear on dress parade...in the uniform prescribed by Army Regulations."

The so-called "Frock Coat Mutiny" occurred because those officers didn't feel that volunteers should have to pay $7.21 each for coats when they already had good lined blouses and balanced clothing accounts. Both officers were convicted, but later reinstated on Governor Curtin's appeal to Stanton in April, 1863, just in time to lead their men at Chancellorsville before mustering out of service in May. And yes, the soldiers ended up having to buy the coats.

Armstrong got a slight measure of revenge in 1864 by anonymously publishing a "fictional" history of the regiment called Red-Tape and Pigeon-Hole Generals, which contains some fairly savage lampoons of Humphreys.