vestes CSA

A SURVEY OF
CONFEDERATE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
QUARTERMASTER ISSUE JACKETS
by Leslie D. Jensen


Type II Richmond jacket of Private John Blair Royal, 1st Co., Richmond howitzers,
showing where a shell hit Royal in the left arm during the Battle of Chancellorsville.

The study of American military uniforms has been pursued with increasing sophistication over the past forty-odd years, with the result that today we are light years ahead of our predecessors in nearly every period of our history. One area, however, remains only sparsely covered, and often is so dominated by the mythology of the past that the historical truth is difficult to discern.

The question of what type of uniforms the Confederate States of America issued to its troops has been of considerable interest for sometime, but to date little concrete evidence has surfaced that would allow us to differentiate between uniforms issued by the central government, those issued by the states, private or foreign purchases, and home made items. Despite some truly important work by members of the Company and others, we still remain ignorant of much of the inner workings of the Confederacy's supply system and clothing procurement practices . Perhaps, too, we are still too easily lulled by an appealing image of the "ragged rebel," and therefore naively accept the concept of Johnny Reb being supplied indefinitely by the folks at home, conveniently ignoring the fact that no army, however resourceful, wages war very long if it doesn't develop a workable supply system.

Part of the problem in this area has been that what work that has been done, particularly by Company members, has concentrated on the distinctive uniforms worn by particular units, almost always from early in the war . There are a number of good reasons for this. First, if any information on a distinctive uniform exists, it is usually fairly easy to find in period newspapers, letters, diaries or photographs. Second, the information is usually specific enough to allow reconstruction of the uniform, and the reconstruction conveniently fits a format such as Military Uniforms in America. Finally, most of these early war uniforms were sufficiently different from one another to illustrate unit distinctions and, therefore, are fit subjects for a plate series.

This type of research is important and badly needed. It helps to fill gaps in our knowledge and hopefully we will see even more of it in the future. It has helped us to learn a great deal about the uniforms of southern volunteers as they marched to war in 1861. What it has not done, however, is to help us learn much very specific about what the majority of Confederates were wearing for most of the conflict.

In this latter area, we have instead developed a body of knowledge of what we believe the "typical" Confederate looked like. The best of this provides us only a rough outline, while much of it is often nothing more than loose guesswork . There are a number of reasons why nothing more concrete has been worked out to date.

First, the destruction, or at least the apparent destruction, of much of the Confederacy's Quartermaster records at the end of the war was a heavy blow to researchers. Compared to the massive Federal records, what has survived is a pittance. At the same time, much of what has survived has not been properly utilized. A great deal of useful information still exists, but it is scattered, and it takes dedicated work to retrieve it.

Second, research in this area has been affected by a school of thought that contends that Confederate resources, across the board, were uniformly inadequate to supply the army's needs, and that what Johnny Reb did receive in the way of clothing came overwhelmingly from the home folks. Obviously, in such a situation, there were no uniforms. Therefore, there's no point in looking for them.

Certainly, this school of thought was spawned and influenced by post-war Southern historical writing, much of which was directed towards justifying the Confederacy's efforts. Out of this school came the emphasis on the "ragged rebel." While certainly truthful at times, such as during the Sharpsburg campaign, the "ragged rebel" came to personify the Confederate soldier for the whole war. For southern apologists, it was a perfect image. Not only was the "ragged rebel" appealing as a staunch individualist fighting for his independence despite a lack of almost everything with which to do it, he also served as a plausible explanation for Confederate defeat. The more ragged and lacking he was in basic equipment, the more glorious his victories and the easier to accept his defeat. Other factors, such as unequal heavy industry, railroads, armament production and naval power were certainly far more powerful in their effects on the war effort than the clothing on the soldier's back, but the "ragged rebel" stood as a convenient symbol that has unfortunately obscured much of what the Confederacy accomplished, and has even diverted attention from some of the other things that went wrong."

Strangely enough, much of the legend-building was accomplished by a limited number of individuals, many of them the sons and daughters of the veterans . Most of the veterans themselves, in their reminiscences, never addressed the problems of supply at all, and of those that did, a surprising number challenged the prevailing view. As an example, W.W. Blackford, who served on General J.E.B. Stuart's staff, noted:

"...In books written since the war, it seems to be the thing to represent the Confederate soldier as being in a chronic state of starvation and nakedness. During the last year of the war this was partially true, but previous to that time it was not any more than falls to the lot of all soldiers in an active campaign. Thriftless men would get barefooted and ragged and waste their rations to some extent anywhere, and thriftlessness is found in armies as well as at home. When the men came to houses, the tale of starvation, often told, was the surest way to succeed in foraging... "

A close look at contemporary Confederate records, including those for the blackest period of the war, reveal some startling statistics. For example, during the last six months of 1864 and including to 31 January 1865, the Army of Northern Virginia alone was issued the following:

104,199 Jackets 140,570 Pairs of Trousers 167,862 Pairs of Shoes
157,727 Cotton Shirts 170,139 Pairs of Drawers 146,136 Pairs of Shoes
74,851 Blankets 27,011 Hats and Caps 21,063 Flannel Shirts
4,861 Overcoats

These were field issues only, and did not include issues to men on furlough, detailed at posts, paroled and exchanged prisoners or any other issues. Moreover, these were overwhelmingly central government issues, and did not include issues by any states except part of North Carolina's. During this same period, Georgia provided to the Confederate Army as a whole, over and above the figures quoted above:

26,795 Jackets 28,808 Pairs of Trousers 37,657 Pairs of Shoes
24,952 Shirts 24,168 Pairs of Drawers 23,024 Pairs of Socks
7,504 Blankets

At this same time, field returns showed the Army of Northern Virginia with a maximum strength of 66,533, including 4,297 officers . Obviously, because of personnel turnover, the actual number of people in the army was somewhat greater; but at the same time it is obvious that with the exception of overcoats, hats and caps, and flannel shirts, many of which had already been provided, the Army of Northern Virginia was not only well supplied, but in some cases extravagantly so.

Moreover, while the statistics quoted above are from the records of the Quartermaster General, there is evidence that at troop unit level, the material was being received and there was a perception of abundant supplies. On 3 October 1864, a board of officers was convened in Corse's Brigade, Pickett's Division, to examine a lot of 226 jean jackets to determine whether they were fit for issue. If unfit, the jackets would have been condemned and more requisitioned. This quantity would have outfitted nearly a fourth of the brigade, and is highly doubtful that experienced officers would have even considered condemnation of such a large amount of clothing had it been difficult to obtain. Obviously, it wasn't . This same brigade announced in February, 1865 that officers could buy shoes from the brigade quartermaster, ".. .the immediate wants of the troops ...being supplied..."

Within the Confederacy's other armies, the same basic story seems to hold true, although some were not as well supplied as Lee's men . Still, if scarcity was in fact not a problem, it stands to reason that at least some of this material ought to survive, and ought to be identifiable as Quartermaster products. Indeed, it can be, but not before one has a thorough understanding of the Confederate clothing procurement system.

The Confederate Quartermaster's Department was organized by Act of Congress 26 February 1861. This act, along with one passed 6 March, established the Confederate Regular Army, an organization with a paper strength of about 6,000 men. As finally organized, the Department was authorized one Quartermaster General with the rank of colonel, an Assistant Quartermaster General ranked as a lieutenant colonel, four Assistant Quartermasters graded as majors, and as many Assistant Quartermasters (AQMs) ranked as captains as the service might require .

At the same time, a second series of acts established the Provisional Army of the Confederate States (PACS) and authorized the President to accept up to 100,000 volunteers for 12 months to man it . The Quartermaster's Department, by law was responsible for clothing only the Regular Army. The volunteers of the Provisional Army were to provide their own clothing, for the use of which the government would pay each man equivalent of the cost of clothing for an NCO or private in the Regular Army, generally $25.00 for each six months. This was the Commutation System. Initially it seems to have been intended to provide a means of clothing the troops without having to build government facilities to do it, to take advantage of the easiest way to clothe the army, and to avoid the risk of stockpiling mountains of material that might become useless surplus if there was no war .

In the meantime, however, there was the Regular Army to supply. In April, 1861, the Quartermaster General, Col. A.C. Myers, ordered Capt. John M. Galt, AQM in New Orleans, to let contracts for 5,000 uniforms for Regular Army recruits. These uniforms were to consist of a blue flannel shirt to be worn as a blouse, steel gray woolen trousers, red or white flannel shirts, plus drawers, socks, bootees, blankets and leather stocks . Caps were added later .

On 24 May, Galt was sent a memo detailing the new regulation uniform that became official 6 June, and which is well known through the published uniform regulations. It is important to keep in mind that at this time these were Regular Army regulations. At the same time he was told to stop the manufacture of the recruit clothing since the recruiting service was being discontinued. Once again, he was told to keep up the manufacture of the 1500 suits per week, although they were now to include "jackets" instead of the "tunics" prescribed in the regulations .

Unfortunately, Galt misunderstood his orders. In response to the question of whether he could supply 50,000 men, he contracted with B.W. Woodlief for 50,000 uniforms. Therefore, very few, if any, of the uniforms prescribed by the 6 June regulations were produced. Myers' concern was not only with his budget, but with the quality and price of the New Orleans product and with the unauthorized contract with Woodlief . More important, Myers was increasingly faced with the need to provide clothing on a far larger scale than had been envisioned or provided by law.

What Myers was announcing to Galt was nothing less than a radical new element in the Quartermaster mission. Whereas by law the Department was responsible only for clothing the roughly 6000 regulars, now it was taking on the open-ended responsibility of supplying some of the 100,000 volunteers as well. By mid-July, the new policy was in effect, with Congressional sanction,necessary may be issued to the Captains of Companies for their men, with instructions that the value of the Clothing is to be charged and deducted from the $21 allowed for the next six months..."

Despite the Department's good intentions, however, it was still only issuing clothing to needy volunteers, and then only when it had it In response to his requests for clothing, General John B. Floyd was told that the law required volunteers to supply themselves, but when the government had clothing it was issued two branches: the Shoe Manufactory under Captain Stephen Putney and the Clothing Manufactory under O.F. Weisiger. Weisiger, a former Richmond dry goods merchant, ran the Manufactory as a civilian until he was commissioned a Quartermaster Captain in 1863 .

Other manufactories were eventually established in Nashville, Tennessee; Athens, Atlanta and Columbus, Georgia; Montgomery, Tuscaloosa and Marion, Alabama; Jackson and Enterprise, Mississippi; Shreveport, Louisiana and elsewhere. Not all of the manufactories operated throughout the war, and by the latter half of the The pieces were bundled, and with the necessary trim, buttons and thread, were issued to seamstresses who sewed them together and were paid by the completed piece.

A typical operation was that at Atlanta. In April, 1863 it employed a total of twenty seven men in house: a Superintendent, two clerks, two inspectors, two trimmers and twenty tailors. These men cut and packaged the uniform pieces, while about 3,000 seamstresses in Atlanta did the actual sewing in their homes. With this force, the Atlanta operation manufactured, in the three months ending 31 December 1862:

37,150 Jackets 13,430 Pairs of Pants 13,700 Cotton Drawers
10,475 Cotton Shirts 500 Flannel Shirts

Projections for the next year


The Richmond Manufactory was similar in size and scope, as were Athens and Columbus. . These efforts began to yield large quantities of English Army shoes in 1863 as well as bulk woolen cloth. Although a good deal of this material was received in 1863, by 1864 the quantities were truly staggering .

On 10 June 1864, Captain Weisiger received 4574 yards of English gray cloth, followed by 4983 more yards on 13 June and 2983 yards of blue English cloth on 16 June. During the same period he logged in 8425 yards of domestic woolen goods from four different manufacturers, for a total of 20,966 yards received in one week. This was a rather typical week, and although there were periods of lesser amounts, the overall volume remained roughly the same until the end of the war .

At the same time, a number of contracts were let with speculators for uniforms and cloth to be run through the blockade. Perhap the biggest of these was let on 12 January 1864 with Haiman and Brother and David Rosenburg of Columbus, Georgia, for 100,000 uniforms. Delivery was to be in Liverpool, England in three batches, due on 1 May, l July and 1 October 1864.

lorsque l'on a la malhônnêteté de censurer à la manière la plus arbitraire possible les propos d'un membre du forum et lorsqu'on évince de la manière la plus dictatoriale les autres, on à l'honneur de le faire avec tout leurs messages : même ceux qui vous intéresse.
vu que ça n'a pas été fait, je le fait.

Clothing Cap, complete Cover Jacket Trousers Shirt Drawers Shoes, pairs Socks, pairs Leather stock Great-coat Stable-frock (mounted) Fatigue overall Blanket 1st 2123334411111 2nd rs' families also played apart, but the extent of it is hard to gauge, because this clothing generally does not appear on the official issue records, or when it is, is not delineated as such .

The important thing to keep in mind about the Clothing Manufactories is that, in common with the decentralized nature of the war and the overall Confederate policy of each army supplying itself from its own departmental resources, the products of each depot General detail to any of the depots exactly how the jackets were to be made. Thus, materials, cut, number of buttons, pockets and the presence or absence of trim were determined by each depot on its own, and probably changed as circumstances dictated.

Materials used could vary depending on what was available at any given time. The Richmond manufactory, for example, dealt mainly with four textile mills . Of these, the Crenshaw Woolen Mills of Richmond was capable of producing all-wool material as well as woolen goods on a cotton warp . Kelly, Tackett & Ford of same . In addition, the Richmond Depot also received a considerable quantity of imported English cloth. Lining material was almost entirely unbleached cotton osnaburg, produced mainly by the Matoaca Manufacturing Company, the Battersea Mills and the Ettrick Manufacturing Company. These mills also produced shirting . Despite the variety of materials, the patterns used for cutting the garments appear to have remained consistent over time.

The issue system provided a table of allowances for specific types of clothing as well as prices that were to be charged for that clothing. If the soldier underdrew the allowance, he was paid the stock Great-coat Stable-frock (mounted) Fatigue overall Blanket 1st 2123334411111 2nd 1112324400100 3rd 1112324400111 Price $2.00.3812.009.003.003.006.001.00.2525.002.003.007.50
It was under this system, with clothing supplied primarily by the various clothing manufactories, and supplemented by state issues, contract clothing and foreign imports, that the Confederate soldier was supplied. Of course, captured Federal clothing and items supplied by the soldiers' families also played apart, but the extent of it is hard to gauge, because this clothing generally does not appear on the official issue records, or when it is, is not delineated as such .

The important thing to keep in mind about the Clothing Manufactories is that, in common with the decentralized nature of the war and the overall Confederate policy of each army supplying how the jackets were to be made. Thus, materials, cut, number of buttons, pockets and the presence or absence of trim were determined by each depot on its own, and probably changed as circumstances dictated.

Materials used could vary depending on what was available at any given time. The Richmond manufactory, for example, dealt mainly with four textile mills . Of these, the Crenshaw Woolen Mills of Richmond was capable of producing all-wool material as well as woolen goods on a cotton warp . Kelly, Tackett & Ford of Manchester, Virginia produced a variety, including red flannel and some sky blue cloth . Bonsack & Whitmore of Bonsack's Depot, Virginia also produced only woolen jeans while the Scottsville Manufacturing Company of Scottsville, Virginia apparently did the same . In addition, the Richmond Depot also received a considerable quantity of imported English cloth. Lining material was almost entirely unbleached cotton osnaburg, produced mainly by the Matoaca Manufacturing Company, the Battersea Mills and the Ettrick Manufacturing Company. These mills also produced shirting . Despite the variety of materials, the patterns used for cutting the garments appear to have remained consistent over time.

What was true for Richmond was true for the other depots as well. Therefore, if today we find a group of uniforms with histories that indicate issue to a given army, and if those uniforms are consistent in cut, if not always in materials, they can usually be attributed to the main depot supplying the army.

Following are some tentative attributions of various uniform types to certain of the Quartermaster Depots. The term "tentative" must be emphasized here, for in over fifteen years of research and the examination of nearly 150 original Confederate enlisted men's uniforms, not one has yet been found with a depot marking, and none of those produced domestically even have a size mark.

Two basic rules of thumb in these attributions have been that there must be at least three surviving uniforms of a given type to constitute a pattern, and those uniforms should each have histories that indicate a common source. Moreover, if a uniform survives today and if the soldier who wore it was still in service in 1865, and unless there is evidence to the contrary, the uniform is considered to be the last one he was issued.

A SURVEY OF
CONFEDERATE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
QUARTERMASTER ISSUE JACKETS
Part 2
by Leslie D. Jensen

RICHMOND DEPOT JACKETS

FIG 1
The three types of Richmond Depot jackets
It is rather difficult to determine the first pattern of jacket issued by the Richmond Depot. Apparently none survive; but based on photographic evidence, and later Richmond practice, it is believed that the first pattern jacket, herein designated the Richmond Depot Type I, was a jacket with a six piece body and two piece sleeves, with a nine button front, shoulder straps and probably belt loops. There were generally no buttons on the cuffs. The lining was probably a cotton osnaburg. that is open to discussion. Moreover, because these jackets were produced during the official commutation period, they may very well have had individual differences created by the demands of unit commanders. An internal note written to the clothing bureau commander in 1862 is a good indication of this:

"Col. Starke wishes a stripe on the pants for his Regt. a bar on the shoulder to be added to the cost of course. You are authorized to -government manufacturers, with the result that jackets of very similar pattern existed from the same period which were clearly not Quartermaster products. 50

FIG 2
Chief Trumpeter Charles H. Powell,
Co. F, 4th Virginia Cavalry
wearing a Richmond Depot Type I jacket
A photograph of Charles H. Powell, 4th Virginia Cavalry, taken 22 February 1862 (above) is one of the earliest pieces of evidence to show this pattern. Like later Richmond jackets, the material is Powell's shoulder straps is tape placed on the surface of the strap, as is the collar, but the cuffs may be piped.
FIG 3Unidentified Artillery Private in Richmond Depot Type I jacket FIG 4Sergeant Austin S. Morris (left)and friend. Morris wears a Richmond Depot Type I jacket(photo by Charles Rees in Richmond) FIG 5Sergeant Thomas Crowder Owens,9th Virginia Infantry
There exist a number of photographs of soldiers, mainly from Virginia, photographed in Richmond wearing this same jacket with either piped or taped trim, or a combination of both. An unidentified artillery private photographed by Charles Rees of Richmond (FIG 4). A photograph of Sergeant Thomas Crowder Owens of the 9th Virginia Infantry, who was killed at Gettysburg, also shows this pattern uniform (FIG 5).
FIG 6 Private William Moore and friend,Parker's Virginia Battery, Spring 1862 in Richmond Depot Type I jackets FIG 7Corporal Theodore C. "Doc" Howard,Parker's battery

A photograph of Private William Moore and a friend of Parker's Battery, probably taken in the Spring of 1862, shows the Type I in a rougher, darker material with tape trim (FIG 5), as does a . All of these photographs are a strong indication that the Type I Jacket, with variations, was being produced by the Richmond Depot at least as early as February, 1862.

Although no example of the depot product of the Type I appears to have survived, an extremely intriguing jacket does exist that is probably a tailor's copy of it. Its construction details are not state issue, and it may be. If so, however, this jacket is so strikingly similar to those in the photographs cited above, particularly those of Owens and Morris, that there must be a relationship.

FIG 8
Jacket of Sergeant E.C.N. Green
of the 47th North Carolina State Troops
The jacket blue cotton tape. It has eight large script "I" buttons down the front manufactured by S. Isaacs and Campbell, two small buttons of the same type at the shoulder straps, and two at each nonfunctioning cuff. There are no belt loops. Sergeant Green's chevrons have been separately applied, each stripe being made of 1/2" wide black velvet. The ends of the chevrons extend into the sleeve seam, indicating they were , belt loops on each hip, an unbleached cotton osnaburg lining and interior pockets. It has a six piece body and two piece sleeves. Generally, it has no trim, although examples with partial trim do exist. In the early stages of production, it was probably made concurrently with the Type I, since, after all, it is only a Type I without the trim. Gradually, however, it have survived, and there are a number of identified and datable photographs that show them in use. Because these jackets were produced over a considerable period of time, and because they were made from materials available at different times, variations in the coat material and the number of buttons have been noted.

FIG 9
Type II Richmond jacket of Private John Blair Royal, 1st Co., Richmond howitzers.
Note the piped shoulder straps.
The example shown above was worn by Private John Blair Royal of the 1st Company, Richmond Howitzers. He had it on when he was wounded at the Battle of Chancellorsville in May, 1863. The left sleeve shows the mark of the incoming Union shell that hit Royal and killed another man on his gun crew. Royal apparently preserved the jacket as a souvenir of his close escape, and did not use it subsequently, for the hole shows neither a repair nor an indication of further wear. Therefore, this jacket is a rare survival from the mid part of the war, and helps to establish the dating for this pattern. Made of a rough wool/cotton combination material, it has red piping on the shoulder straps, and displays the six piece body, two piece sleeves, nine button front, plain cuffs, osnaburg lining and belt loops that characterize the pattern .
FIG 10Sergeant John French WhiteCo . K, 32nd Virginia Infantry 15 May 1863 FIG 11Ernest Hudgins, Mathews County, Virginia
A photograph of Sergeant John French White, Company K, 32d Virginia Infantry, taken 15 May 1863, shows this same pattern, and again aids in dating. (FIG 10) White had evidently drawn this jacket in February upon returning from furlough, although his regiment drew 75 jackets on 4 April and another 60 on 26 May. Whether the one in the photo was drawn in February or April, it came through the Army of Northern Virginia's main supply source, the Richmond Depot. Like the Royal jacket, it had a nine button front and shoulder straps
FIG 12 E.A. Timberlake,Laurel Brigade FIG 13Pvt Alexander Harris, Parker's Virginia Battery.He was discharged 1 Nov. 1862 FIG 14Private C.J. Rush,Co. E, 21st Georgia InfantryPhoto taken after 17May 1865 at Lincoln General Hospital
Other photographs of Army of Northern Virginia soldiers wearing these jackets include those of Ernest Hudgins, of Mathews County, Virginia (FIG 11), E.A. Timberlake of the Laurel Brigade (FIG 12), Alexander Hams of Parker's Battery (FIG 13) and Private C.J. Rush of the 21st Georgia (FIG 14). In addition, there are a number of photographs of unidentified soldiers, some demonstrably taken in Richmond, that show the same jacket .

The photographs of Harris and Rush are of particular importance. Harris was discharged from the army 1 November 1862 , and it is likely that his photograph had been taken the previous spring when his battery was mustered in. The photograph of Rush, who was captured at Fort Stedman on 25 March 1865, was taken sometime after 17 May 1865 when he was admitted to Lincoln General Hospital in Washington, D.C. In Rush's case, the jacket may have been one which was already at the hospital when he arrived, for two photographs of Private Rush exist, and he wears a different jacket in each. As a possible indication that the jacket was not originally his, it should be noted that the buttons on the Type II Richmond jacket worn by Rush are Mississippi infantry pattern. Rush, of course, served in a Georgia regiment .

FIG 15
Confederate prisoners at White House, Virginia in June, 1864
Thus, the Type II Richmond Depot jacket may have been in production as early as the Spring of 1862, judging from Harris' picture, with the transition between the trimmed Type I and the untrimmed Type II being somewhat gradual and overlapping. The Type II was certainly in use in 1863 and 1864, based on the White photograph and also on the well known view of Confederate prisoners captured at Cold Harbor in June, 1864, in which the majority wear jackets with shoulder straps and belt loops (FIG 15). At least three of the dead Confederates photographed at Fort Mahone in April, 1865 have shoulder straps on their jackets, although the majority do not . Therefore, at least some of these jackets were still in service at the end of the war.
A Type II jacket worn by Private George N. Bernard of the 12th Virginia was made of a rough, dark greenish gray woolen material. The lining, however, was the cotton osnaburg to be expected in this pattern. It had a nine button front and belt loops, and once had shoulder straps. These straps had been deliberately cut off, probably during service, but the ends were still in the shoulder seam .

FIG 16
Richmond type II jacket
Another jacket of this same pattern, but in heavy wool cadet gray kersey surfaced in early 1988. Unfortunately without a solid history, it is believed to be a part of this group based upon the overall pattern, the button count, the shoulder straps, belt loops and lining and the fact that this kersey material saw extensive use in the Army of Northern Virginia late in the war (FIG 16).

FIG 17
Richmond Type II Jacket
worn by William Ramsey, 17th Va. Infantry
Finally, a jacket of the same pattern, but without the belt loops is in the Smithsonian collection. Itwas worn by Private G. William Ramsey, 17th Virginia Infantry (FIG 17). Ramsey joined the 17th transition piece both because it lacks belt loops and because it is made of heavy cadet gray kersey . As will be seen, this kersey material was used almost exclusively in the Type III Richmond Depot jacket, which dates to the last part of the war. This, plus the fact that the same material is found in a group of Irish-made jackets described below, argues strongly that this gray kersey is English-made cloth run through the blockade.
Another jacket of the same type, also without the belt loops, was used by J. Rhodes Duval of the 62d Georgia Partisan Rangers, which served in Lee's army from May until July, 1864, when it was Type II jacket similar to Duval's except that it was made of a rough gray tabby weave wool. Like Duval's, it has been piped, this time in a yellow worsted cord. Bryan used this jacket sometime between his promotion to captain in 1863 and his death on 16 August 1864 .

The last jacket in this group has the most radical departure from the pattern, in that it has only six buttons down the front. Made of a thin cadet gray wool with an unusual weave, it is lined with the expected osnaburg, has the belt loops and once had shoulder straps, again cut off. This jacket was worn by George H. Type II except that it lacks shoulder straps and belt loops. All of those found thus far are made of heavy cadet grey kersey. Otherwise, the pattern, lining, button count and other characteristics are identical to the Type II.
At least fourteen of these jackets survive, indicating widespread issue. This high survival rate, plus the "last uniform" rule, indicates that this must be the last pattern issued to Lee's army from the depot.

FIG 18
Richmond Depot type III jacket
worn by E.F. Barnes, 1st Co., Richmond Howitzers
The jacket worn by E.F. Barnes, 1st Company Richmond Howitzers, is a good example of the type (FIGs 19, 20). Made of cadet gray wool kersey, it is lined in the standard cotton osnaburg used by the depot. The nine buttons on the front, seven of which & Inspector General's Office dated 3 June 1862 allowed officers to wear a fatigue uniform in the field consisting of a plain frock coat or a gray jacket, without embroidery "on the collar only." The convoluted language of this order probably meant, or at least seems to have been interpreted to mean, that only collar insignia and not sleeve braid must be worn . An 1864 General Order allowed officers to draw enlisted clothing once all the men had been supplied . Two examples of Type III jackets acquired in this manner by officers have survived, one with an interesting modification that allows close dating.

FIG 19
Richmond type III jacket
worn by Brigadier General William Fitzhugh Payne
A jacket worn by Brigadier General William Fitzhugh Payne is a standard Type III with the addition of colonel's stars on the collar (FIG 21). The original infantry buttons still remain on the jacket, despite the fact that Payne was a cavalry officer .

FIG 20
Richmond type III jacket
of Lt ThomasTolson,
2nd Maryland Infantry
2d Lt Thomas Tolson of the 2d Maryland Infantry wore a Type III jacket adorned only with his rank insignia on the collar. The lining in Tolson's uniform is most unusual, consisting of heavy gray jacket is identical to the others [see Ross Kimmel's article in this issue, FIG 9 for a photograph of this jacket].
Other known Type III jackets are listed in the footnotes. All of them date from 1864 or 1865 and all are attributable to elements of the Army of Northern Virginia .

A SURVEY OF
CONFEDERATE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
QUARTERMASTER ISSUE JACKETS
Part 3
by Leslie D. Jensen

THE TAIT CONTRACT JACKET
Another pattern of jacket dating from late in the war was the product of the Confederacy's purchasing operations abroad. A relatively large group of them survive, indicating widespread late-war issue is significant that in 1860 there were only four linen factories in this country, all of them in the north . Linen linings therefore would indicate a non-domestic product. A vertical slit pocket is set into the lining on the inside left breast. The front edges of the jacket are machine stitched, with a distinctive double line of stitching on the right side where the buttons attach. The left front is turned under but the facing piece is cut raw.
The linings are stamped with one of two types of size markings. One is a set of figures such as "5-9/ 38-40" or "5 Ft. 9/ 38-40" indicating a size for a man 5 feet 9 inches with a chest measurement of 38-40 inches. This is the only known group of Confederate jackets to have markings of any kind. Only two of these jackets still carry the original buttons, but they are critical in attributing the group, for they are stamped "P. Tait/Limerick."
Peter Tait was a ready-made clothing manufacturer in Limerick, Ireland. He got his start during the Potato Famine of the 1840's and later as a uniform contractor to the British Army during the Crimean War. A Limerick newspaper account of 1866 indicates that at least one cargo in the Evelyn arrived in Wilmington on Christmas Eve, 1864 . A Quartermaster's book from the Richmond depot confirms the arrival of the Evelyn at Wilmington on 29 December carrying 4400 jackets and pants as part of the Collie and Tait contract .

FIG 22
Peter Tait contract jacket worn by Pvt. Alfred Goodwin, Sturdevant's Battery.
The red collar and cuffs are post-war additions. Note the lack of a back center seam.
The jacket illustrated in FIG 22 was worn by Private Alfred Goodwin of Sturdivant's Battery, a unit of the Army of Nothern Virginia. It has the five piece body,served in the trenches at Petersburg until the end of the war .
Private William A. Harrison of the 2d Maryland Infantry wore the jacket illustrated in Ross Kimmel's article, FIG 8. His garment is essentially unaltered except for the buttons. The pattern, button count, linen lining, stitching and other features, plus the collar, are all original and distinctive features. Marked in the lining is: "5-9/38-33." Clothing rolls for the4th Quarter, 1864 indicate that Harrison drew a new jacket on 13 November 1864 .
Another jacket of the same pattern, also with an Army of Northern Virginia history, surfaced in the last two years. It belonged to a soldier of the 63d Tennessee, and is identical to the others except that it has shoulder straps in the same color as the collar. The markings are of this same system but have not been recorded .
An extensively altered Tait jacket was used by Quartermaster Sergeant M. Glennan of the 36th North Carolina, a member of the Fort Fisher garrison. It has been shortened and taken in, and the collar has been adorned with a triangle of gold braid. Markings are: "6-0/41-36." Sergeant Glennan was captured 15 January 1865, but had been paroled and was in Richmond before the war ended. He could have drawn the jacket either at Fort Fisher or in Richmond .

FIG 23
Peter Tait contract jacket of Pvt. Garrett Gouge, 58th North Carolina Regiment
Generally, the jackets located have histories that tie them to either northeastern North Carolina, the Petersburg front or the Appomattox retreat route. Conversations with relic hunters indicate that Tait buttons generally come from only those areas as well. Therefore, the discovery of a jacket owned by Private Garrett Gouge of the 58th North Carolina was at first of matter of some concern (FIG 23). The 58th was an Army of Tennessee unit, and never saw service with either Lee or at Fort Fisher. However, the regiment's last service was guarding Quartermaster stores in Greensboro . The jacket in question is in near mint condition; it has not seen hard service and obviously was drawn just before Gouge went home. Like the others, it has the five piece body, two piece sleeves, eight button front, distinctive stitching and linen lining. Like the 63d Tennessee jacket, it has shoulder straps, but these are of the same material of the coat and are piped in blue. However, the shape is distinctively the same. The collar is also piped. The markings read: "5 FEET 10/30-34." The most important feature of this jacket is the buttons. All are obviously original to the coat, and are stamped "P. Tait/Limerick."

FIG 24
Thomas Roche's photograph of a dead Confederate soldier wearing a Peter Tait jacket,
taken at Fort Mahone, Petersburg, Va. on April 3, 1865
A final piece of evidence that links these jackets to both time and place are the photographs taken by Thomas Roche at Fort Mahone at Petersburg on 3 April 1865 (FIG 24). They show the body of a Confederate soldier wearing a Tait jacket. It has the correct button count, the distinctive double line of stitching, and under a glass it can be seen that the collar and shoulder straps are of a finer material than the rest of the jacket. The shoulder straps in this case have been rather crudely cut off. The original photographer's label indicated that the jacket was gray with red trim .

In addition to those described above, at least four other Tait jackets survive. One has an Appomattox history, another was used by a Virginia soldier, the third (recently surfaced) is identical to the Gouge jacket and shares an Army of Tennessee/North Carolina campaign history, while the fourth is without a history but was found in Virginia. This last jacket is marked; "SIZE NO. 2." Moreover, inspection reports for York's Louisiana command for January and February, 1865 indicate that some of the unit had just received English jackets, but there were complaints about some of them being too sma11 . Taken together, the evidence indicates that Tait's jackets were received very late in the war, and that they saw service only with Lee's main army at Petersburg and in North Carolina.

THE CHARLESTON DEPOT JACKET
The Department of South Carolina, Georgia,. and Florida had a clothing depot at Charleston, SC. Details on its establishment are foggy, but the Chief Quartermaster, Major Hutson Lee, had been on the job since 1861 and at some point established a manufacturing facility. Captain George L. Crafts was in charge. An Assistant Quartermaster in Charleston (at least as early as February, 1863) by June, 1864 Crafts was using as his address: "Bureau of Clothing and Camp and Garrison Equipage." He was officially placed in charge of the "Established Manufactory," on 8 November 1864 by the order of the Adjutant and Inspector General. At that point, his depot became one of the general depots, whose operations and issues were under the exclusive control of the Quartermaster General .
Records of this operation are extremely fragmentary, although there is strong evidence, over and above the name assigned to the facility, that clothing was indeed manufactured. Crafts transferred the following stores to Captain R. Ward, at Adams Run, SC on 7 February 1863:
528 Melton Shirts 240 Jeans Pants 11 Blue Cloth Pants
486 Caps 180 Pr Shoes
In December, 1864, Crafts sent 200 Jackets and 200 Pairs of Pants to Captain C.L. Davies, AQM, Greenville, SC .
Identifying the products of this depot is extremely difficult, but there are two surviving jackets that may be from Craft's operation. One was used by 1st Sergeant T. Grange Simons of the 25th South Carolina Infantry. This regiment was stationed in the Charleston area until early 1864, when they were transferred to Lee's army. They came back to the Department of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida in late 1865 . The other jacket was worn by Private William Kirby Brown of the Palmetto Guard. His unit served as siege artillery until the evacuation of Charleston in the spring of 1865, when they transferred north as part of Johnston's army and surrendered at Greensboro, NC, 26 April 1865 .
Both jackets are made of the English wool kersey found in both the Richmond Type III jackets and the Tait contract. Both have linings made of unbleached cotton osnaburg. However, these jackets have six piece bodies with one piece, rather than two piece sleeves, and only five buttons down the front. Simons' jacket has block I buttons imported by Courtney & Tennent of Charleston, while Brown's has CS staff buttons made by Hammond, Turner & Bates of Manchester, England. Neither jacket has shoulder straps. Unlike Richmond products, the collars of these jackets are interlined. Finally, and perhaps the most conspicuous feature, other than the button count and the lack of shoulder straps, are the belt loops. Unlike any other pattern, these belt loops are extremely large, 4 1/8" high by 1 3/4" wide on Simons' jacket and 5 5/ 8" high by 2 5/8" wide on Brown's. Moreover, these loops are. shaped like shoulder straps, flat at one end and tapering towards the top.
Unfortunately, until more jackets of this pattern are found, we cannot be absolutely sure of the provenance. But the existence of these two, from different units of the Charleston garrison, strongly suggests that they are products of the Charleston depot.
WESTERN DEPOTS

In the latter years of its operation, the Army of Tennessee was supplied by at least three depots on a normal basis, Atlanta, Columbus and Athens. All were general depots, under the exclusive control of the Quartermaster General. A commander who needed clothing could not requisition it directly from the nearest general depot. Instead, he had to address his requisition to the Quartermaster General in Richmond, who then decided which depot or depots would fill it . Often, as in the case of a requisition for 15,000 uniforms for General Johnston's army in Mississippi on 17 March 1863, the Quartermaster General would instruct two or more depots (in this case Atlanta and Columbus) to divide the requisition between them and thereby fill it . Thus, at any given time, the western armies could be simultaneously receiving the products of at least three depots. This highly complicates identification.
The Atlanta Depot is probably the best documented of these operations. It was in production at least as early as October, 1862, and was set up as the successor to the Nashville Depot, which had fallen that spring. After the fall of Atlanta, the operation appears to have been consolidated with Augusta .
The Quartermaster at Atlanta was Major V.K. Stevenson, but the depot itself functioned under Major G.W. Cunningham. An April, 1863 inspection report is the source for much of our information on this depot, and it indicates a large operation producing upwards of 130,000 uniforms per year .
The depot at Columbus was described at one point as the largest in the Confederacy . Certainly it was an important depot. Its products probably saw service in every theater of the war, and it continued to function uninterrupted until Columbus fell in April, 1865. Major F.W. Dillard was the Quartermaster. A report for the 4th Quarter, 1863 showed 13,036 jackets already on hand, 6,455 purchased and 23,194 manufactured, for a grand total of 42,752. The manufactured total would indicate a yearly production of about 92,000 .
The depot at Athens was established by one of Bragg's quartermasters, Major Lemuel O. Bridewell, after the 1862 Kentucky campaign. Bridewell was ordered to take the wool and other unmanufacturerd goods acquired in Kentucky and begin producing clothing with it . By July, 1863, he was able to ask the Quartermaster General if he should issue the 10,000 complete suits he had on hand to Bragg's Army, in line with Bragg's request .
Unfortunately, it is not at this point possible to differentiate with confidence between the products of these three depots. Apparently they were very similar. All three depots used woolen jeans for the basic material, and osnaburg for linings. Several groups of western uniforms survive, and on the basis of their histories it may be possible to at least narrow their possible source to one or two depots.

THE COLUMBUS DEPOT JACKET

One rather large group of jackets is represented by at least six examples, in two variations, all but one with histories tying them to the Kentucky Orphan Brigade. They date from as early as November, 1862 to the end of the war.
These jackets are made of a butternut colored wool jean, probably originally gray wool on an unbleached cotton warp. They have medium blue wool kersey or wool flannel collars, and straight cuffs made of the same material. Linings are made of the standard cotton osnaburg. Most have a six button front, although one has five and one has seven. What appears to be the earliergroup has pockets on the inside only, while the latter group has one exterior pocket.
For this group, unlike for most Confederate uniforms, we have a diary description that matches the pattern relatively closely. Washington Ives of the 4th Florida Infantry, noted on 21 October 1863: "Our regt is just drawing some excellent clothing; jackets of gray, blue cuffs..." A few days later, he described them in more detail: "...The coats are dark and light gray (mostly with blue collars and cuffs ...it is worsted cross between cassimere and jeans, very warm and disireable... "
A photograph of two Confederate prisoners, taken on Lookout Mountain, Tennessee, probably in November, 1863, shows this same pattern.96
Although one cannot be absolutely sure, the only large depot known to have distributed clothing as widely as would have been necessary to reach the units noted here, over this long a period of time, appears to have been Columbus. Therefore, a very tentative attribution of these jackets to that depot is made here. Those without exterior pockets are designated Columbus Type I while those with exterior pockets are designated Type II.

FIG 25
Columbus Depot jacket
worn by Pvt. Elijah C. Woodward,
Co C, 9th Kentucky Infantry
The earliest jacket in this group, a Columbus Type I, was worn by Private Elijah C. Woodward, Co. "C," 9th Kentucky Infantry (FIG 25). Woodward enlisted in September, 1861 and deserted in November, 1862. His jacket has a five button front, and two inside pockets in the right and left breasts .
The next jacket chronologically, also a Type I, was used by John McDonnell, Company G,1 st Mississippi Light Artillery. McDonnell enlisted 14 May 1862 and served through the Vicksburg campaign. He did not return to the army after his parole on 4 July 1863. His jacket is like Woodward's except for a six button front .
Private David Fenimore Cooper Weller, Co. "C," 2d Kentucky Infantry, served all the way through the war. He was wounded severely at Fort Donelson. After his recovery, he was detailed to hospital duty at Forsythe, Georgia during the spring and summer of 1863. He rejoined his unit briefly in the fall of 1863, then returned to hospital duty in November and did not rejoin his company until September-October, 1864. His Type I jacket is like McDonnell's, with six button front and pockets inside the right and left breasts .
The remaining three jackets in the group, all Type II's, have less definite histories. One was used by Private A.W. Randolph, Co. B, 6th Kentucky Infantry. Randolph, too served throughout the war, and appears on a receipt roll for clothing in December, 1864 . Another was used by John F. Jenkins of the Breckenridge Guards, a cavalry company attached to General Nathan Bedford Forrest . Finally, the history of the last jacket, which is now in the Oklahoma Historical Society, is somewhat in doubt, but it appears to have belonged to either James Dunn, 2d Missouri Infantry, Robert Reece of Forrest's Cavalry or 2d Lt. William S. Phillips, Quartermaster, 1st Kentucky Brigade, most likely the latter . All three of these jackets have an outside pocket on the left breast, with a large facing piece the length of the pocket and 5/8" to 1 1/2" wide across the opening. Jenkins' jacket and the Oklahoma Historical Society example have six button fronts, while Randolph's has seven.
THE ATLANTA DEPOT JACKET

A small group of three jackets appears to be tied to the Atlanta Depot. Made of a rough tabby woven wool that looks something like salt and pepper burlap, they are lined with unbleached cotton osnaburg. They have six piece bodies and one piece sleeves, and all three have a six button front. The buttons are missing from two of the jackets, but the third has wood buttons of a type observed on a number of different Western jackets and also on some from Lee's army. One of the jackets has a belt loop on the left side only. A peculiarity of this group, also observed in the Charleston pattern, is that the two front panels were apparently cut from different patterns, for the collar, which is cut the same size on both sides, comes to within about an inch of the edge of the coat on the right side, and flush with the edge on the left. The result is a collar that comes together in the center, and a right front that considerably overlaps the left. That this feature was the result of a concious tailoring decision there can be no doubt, since it appears on all three jackets.
All of these jackets date from 1864. One was worn by Pvt. Joseph Israel Daniel of the 5th Georgia Cavalry when he was wounded on 20 June 1864 at Noonday Church, Georgia during the Atlanta campaign . Another was the property of 1st Sgt. J. Fuller Lyon of the 19th South Carolina Infantry, Manigault's Brigade, and he had it on when wounded at Lovejoy Station, Georgia on 28 July 1864 . Finally, a jacket worn by J.B. Stanley was worn at the Battle of Franklin, Tennessee, 30 November 1864. Unfortunately, Stanley has not been identified completely, but he lived after the war in Greenville, Alabama and may have served in the 22d Alabama Infantry . These jackets are attributed to Atlanta based on their closeness to that depot in terms of time and place. It is important to note that Daniel's unit had just come to the Georgia theater from Florida and South Carolina when he was wounded, while Lyon's unit had been serving in Tennessee. The central depot that both these units would have drawn from was Atlanta. The fact that the history of the Stanley jacket post-dates the closing of the facility by only two months argues that it may have been among the last to be issued from there.
DEPARTMENT OF ALABAMA JACKETS

The last group of jackets to be covered here are all associated with units of the Army of Tennessee that were assigned to Richard Taylor's Department of Alabama after the abortive Nashville campaign. Taylor noted the efforts to resupply these troops in his memoirs as occurring in February, 1865 .
All of these jackets are made of woolen jean, with a six piece body and two piece sleeves. All have linings of cotton osnaburg, and all have collars made of dark blue wool jeans, (dark blue woolen weft on a brown cotton warp). All have five button fronts, and all have one exterior pocket, though they vary from one side of the jacket front to the other. Two have small single belt loops, shaped like shoulder straps on the left side only. One is missing the original buttons, one is missing all its buttons, but the remaining two are equipped with wooden buttons like those seen on the Columbus jackets. Taylor's main source of supply, particularly to troops on the Meridian, Mississippi- Mobile, Alabama line appears to have been the large depot operating at Columbus, Mississippi. In July, 1864, the Quartermaster there, Major W.J. Anderson, was disbursing approximately $130,000 per month. He boasted that "...The clothing material is excellent and the workmanship superior to any I have seen made elsewhere..." The depot at Columbus was operating as late as November, 1864, but by 15 March 1865, Anderson was being listed as a "Manufacturing Q.M." at Demopolis, Alabama. It is therefore possible that the jackets described here were made in either Columbus, Mississippi or Demopolis, Alabama."
The jacket of John A. Dolan, Austin's Battalion, Louisiana Sharpshooters, is perhaps the best documented of the group. Written in ink in the lining is "John A. Dolan/Enlisted Aug 17 1861/N.O. LA/Surrendered/May 12/ 1865/ Merridian/Miss./Austin Batt. Comp. A/ SHARPSHOOTERS/ Gibson Brig/ Clayton Division/ Hardee Corps/Hood's Army/ C.S.A." and "May/1865/J.A.DOLAN/C.S.A."

FIG 26
Department of Alabama jacket worn by
Thomas Jefferson Beck,
Fenner's Louisiana Battery
The jacket worn by Private Thomas Jefferson Beck of Fenner's Louisiana Battery is virtually identical to Dolan's, except that it is interlined, while Dolan's is not (FIG 26). Fenner's Battery was requesting an extensive amount of new clothing on 17 March 1865, while stationed at Mobile . The Beck jacket has wooden buttons, as does one believed to have been worn by a member of the 31st Mississippi . Finally, a jacket exists that was worn by a J. Donald or J. McDonald, described as being a member of the "Missouri Infantry." The only J. Donald found to fit this description was J.M. Donald, Co. I, 6th Missouri Infantry. However, he was paroled at Vicksburg in 1863 and did not return to the army. However, there was a John McDonald of Co. F, 8th Missouri, who was paroled in New Orleans 26 May 1865, as well as a Sergeant J. A. McDonald, same company paroled at the same time and place. In addition, Lt. John F. McDonald, Co. I, 9th Missouri Infantry, was paroled at Shreveport, LA . Of these four, it would appear that one of the two men paroled in New Orleans is the likely candidate. This jacket is identical to the others except for Confederate local staff buttons.
What appears to be a variant example of this pattern is the jacket worn by Silas Calmes Buck, Co. D, 12th Mississippi Cavalry . It is virtually identical to the pattern above, except that the collar and cuffs are made of a green wool twill material. All other features are the same, including a belt loop on the left side. Buck's unit, while not part of the former Army of Tennessee, did serve in the Department of Alabama. Stationed at Pollard, Alabama in March, 1865, they were engaged at Fort Blakely near Mobile, performed guard duty during the evacuation of that city and retreated to Demopolis before being paroled at Gainesville, Alabama. There is every reason to believe, therefore, that this jacket is also a product of the same depot .
Although some of the attributions remain tentative, and there is a great deal of work yet to be done, it is hoped that this article will at least define the broad outlines of Confederate Quartermaster issues and demonstrate the possibility of identifying Confederate central government Quartermaster products. Perhaps more important, hopefully it will help demonstrate that the Confederate nation was able to respond in an effective manner to the demands placed upon it by the war. The Confederate Quartermaster system was only one part of a burgeoning of Confederate industry that was cut short by Union victory. The full extent of that industrial base is yet to be understood, but the continuing study of Confederate material culture is the most effective means of learning about the industrial and logistical bases that supported the rebel armies in the field and sustained the war for four long years.
Acknowledgments
This article is only a broad brush approach to a subject that demands, and will have, book length treatment. It is hoped that in that volume the author may be able to properly thank all the many individuals and institutions who have opened their collections over the years, and who have supported and encouraged the continuing study of Confederate Quartermaster clothing.
However, I cannot omit in this article to thank the staff of the Museum of the Confederacy, most importantly the late Eleanor S. Brockenbrough, and those of the South Carolina Confederate Relic Room and Museum, Columbia, SC, the United Daughters of the Confederacy Museum, Charleston. SC, and the Confederate Museum of the Louisiana Historical Association in New Orleans.
Numerous private collectors provided access to th- _r treasures, in particular Bill Turner, Dave Mark, Michael Kramer, Mickey Black, Bob McDonald, Lewis Leigh, John Graham, Bob Parker and Lewis Hall, Jr.
Company Fellow H. Michael Madaus has been a constant help and inspiration, pointing the way to obscure sources and collections, and serving as a foil for various theories and ideas. Fellow Michael P. Musick of the National Archives continues to be indispensable. Fellows William L. Brown, III, Burton K. Kummerow, Ross M. Kimmel, Donald E. Kloster, Russ A. Pritchard, Frederick C. Gaede, Michael J. McAfee and Michael L. Vice, and Company Members Charles R. Childs and Denis E. Reen provided cogent comments and observations that proved of significant help. Juanita Leisch provided the computer that finally got the article written. Finally, and most importantly, Pat Jensen not only helped research, write notes, take photographs, and assist with numerous ideas, but provided comments and continuing support that were of immense importance in formulating this manuscript.

Quelqu'un pourrai traduir le texte ou m'indiquer un bon cite de traduction, car je comprend difficilement l'anglais
merci.
c'est dommage car ce qu'a écrit the duck est surement très intéressant