The Imported British Overcoat for the Confederate Army
By Fred Adolphus, February 2014
Image 1: S. Isaac, Campbell & Company imported Confederate overcoat, now in the collection of the Texas Civil War Museum, Fort Worth, Texas
Pennsylvania zouave Frank Rauscher provided the most
succinct, first-hand description of the imported Confederate overcoat of the
Civil War. Rauscher commented in
December 1863 that in Virginia, “The [Confederate] prisoners here taken were
better clothed than any we had before seen; all were provided with overcoats
and jackets of much better material than our own. They were of English manufacture, a much
darker blue than the U.S. [sky blue overcoat] and they furnished conclusive
evidence of successful blockade running.”
Rauscher was probably describing the dark, blue-gray kersey, S. Isaac,
Campbell & Company overcoat issued to the Army of Northern Virginia
that closely resembled the standard British army overcoat. One of these S. Isaac, Campbell overcoat survives
today in the Texas Civil War Museum collection in Fort Worth, Texas.[1] However, the S. Isaac, Campbell overcoat was just one
of many imported into the Confederacy from abroad.
Image 2: The artist's rendition of the S. Isaac, Campbell overcoat by Company of Military Historians Fellow Alan H. Archambault, depicts the coat as it would have appeared when worn by a soldier of the Army of Northern Virginia. The author described the coat to the artist before he had a chance to examine it thoroughly, therefore, the artwork may contain some slight differences with the original. Any discrepancies are entirely the fault of the author.
The most salient feature of the surviving S. Isaac,
Campbell overcoat is that it mirrors the British army overcoat, not the
Confederate army regulation greatcoat.
This is understandable for several reasons. The British coat was blue-gray kersey which
matched the Confederate uniform color perfectly. Its tailoring was not only simpler than the
elaborate, Confederate regulation overcoat, it was already standardized within
the British uniform industry. Therefore,
it required no additional set-up time to manufacture, and could go into
immediate production.
Image 3: An artist's depiction of the British army overcoat during the Crimean War shows similarities to the S. Isaac, Campbell coat. Image courtesy of Warfare in the Age of Steam Blog, 25 Sep 2010.
|
Image 4: This artistic rendering of a 1/6 scale model shows a Crimean War British soldier in a greatcoat similar to the S. Isaac, Campbell coat. Image courtesy of Artheads Gallery, Tony Barton website.
|
By
contrast with the British pattern, Confederate uniform regulations called for
two different types of enlisted overcoats. Both were to be made of cadet gray cloth, double-breasted
with a stand-up collar, a cape, and to button all the way up with eighteen
buttons (presumably nine buttons per row).
The cape on the overcoat for mounted men was to reach to the cuff when
the arm was extended, and the cape for footmen was to reach to the elbows when
the arm was extended. Accompanying sketches
show that the mounted overcoat cape buttoned with a single row of nine,
small-size buttons, and that the foot overcoat cape buttoned with a single row
of seven, small-size buttons. Neither
overcoat was depicted with French cuffs.[2] That the British army-style overcoat was
single-breasted represented an enormous savings in time and materials in
manufacture.
Image 5: The Confederate uniform regulations of 1862 prescribed differing overcoat for footmen (left) and mounted men (right). Essentially, the mounted overcoat had a longer cape.
Despite
that, two surviving contracts call for double-breasted great coats that closely
follow the Confederate regulations. Mr. John Chiles
of St. Louis, Missouri agreed to import at Brownsville, Texas by November 1,
1863, 30,000 great coats for $20.00 apiece.[3] The contract called for an entire array of
clothing that included, “Thirty
Thousand Great Coats suitable for enlisted men in the service of the
Confederate States Army, to be made of Cadet Grey cloth, stand up collar,
double breasted, cape to reach the cuff of the coat sleeve when the arm is
extended, and to button all the way up, one pocket in the left breast facing,
one pocket in each fold of the skirt, edges of the skirt to be filled and
stitched, so as to make what is termed “smelled [felled?] edges”, two rows of buttons on
the breast seven in each row, the buttons to be military brass buttons; the
distances between the rows four inches at the top and three inches at the
bottom, the coat to average forty-four inches in length from the top of the
collar to the lower edge of the skirt, also average from forty-two to forty-six
inches in size measuring around the breast, and to be lined through the body
with heavy Linsey cloth, and through the sleeves with good serviceable twilled
flannel or twilled cotton cloth.” The
delivery date was postponed, undoubtedly since Federal forces occupied
Brownsville in November 1863.
Nonetheless, the 30,000 complete uniforms were awaiting delivery in
Matamoros on June 10, 1864, and were apparently moved into Texas shortly after
the Confederates liberated Brownsville on July 29, 1864.[4]
Image 6: Artist Alan H. Archambault has offered a graphic depiction of what the Chile imported overcoat would have looked like, following the contract specifications.
Another
Trans-Mississippi contract, made with Mr. John T. Chidester (or possibly Chichester) of Camden, Ouachita County,
Arkansas, on June 12, 1863, called for
another 30,000 uniforms. These were to
be delivered on or before January 1, 1864 either in Arkansas or on the Texas
coast.[5] Aside
from the other uniform components, the agreement called for, “30,000 Great
Coats for enlisted men of the Confederate States service, of Cadet Grey cloth,
or dark blue or black English beaver cloth, stand-up collars, double breasted,
cape to reach to the elbow when the arm is extended, and to button all the way
up (buttons eighteen), lined through the body with Linsey and through the
sleeves with brown drilling at $15.00 each.”
While no records have been found confirming delivery, the uniforms were
certainly delivered since Chidester became very wealthy by 1864: a sure
indication that he was paid for completing the contract.
Image 7: Alan H. Archambault's next drawing depicts the Chidester imported overcoat, again using the contract specifications as a guideline.
C.L. Webster III’s impressive work, Entrepot, provides a
wealth of data on how many overcoats were imported into the Confederacy.[6] As early as late April 1862 blockade runners
were delivering “Military Grey Overcoats, English Regulation” to
Wilmington. Later, in February 1863,
Gorgas reported that Confederate purchasing agent Caleb Huse had already
shipped 8,675 greatcoats, with an additional 14,250 awaiting shipment in
London.[7] Blockade runners delivered more overcoats to
Wilmington in May 1864. A total of 178
bales of overcoats and pants arrived on May 16, 1864, and another 15 bales of
overcoats arrived on May 28, 1864. The
May deliveries were S. Isaac, Campbell goods.[8] Furthermore, the State of North Carolina
imported 6,000 overcoats through in mid-September 1864.[9] In January 1864, the Confederate
government made an agreement with
Rosenburg & Haiman Bros. & Co. to deliver 100,000 suits of clothing,
consisting of jacket, pants, overcoat and shoes, made in Germany “in quality
like that furnished the Prussian government.”[10]
Whether any overcoats were delivered under this agreement is unknown, but a
portion of the contract was delivered prior to July 1, 1864, and may have
included some overcoats.[11]
Image 8: The Prussian Army overcoat of 1864, as depicted in this and the following image, was charcoal gray, had no cape, and closed in the front with six buttons. This variant has French cuffs. Haiman may have delivered thousands that mirrored these specifications. Image courtesy of KaisersBunker website.
|
Image 9: This original Prussian overcoat of the Civil War era was made without French cuffs.
|
Finally, the most noted of foreign uniform manufacturers for
the Confederacy, Peter Tait & Company, offered greatcoats. As early as December 15, 1963, Tait offered
to make for the Confederate quartermaster, “50,000 Great Coats of Stout Grey
Cloth cut ready for sewing (fast dye),” at 12 shillings each. He sold the State of Alabama an unknown
quantity of these pre-cut, greatcoat sets in 1864. While the exact quantity is not known, they
numbered into the thousands since every Alabama State Troop received one, many
Alabama Confederate troops received them, and there were hundreds of private
sales of overcoats to Alabama officers at $130.00 per "Over Coat." By mid-October 1864, Tait had 11,500 finished
greatcoats ready for shipment to Confederate authorities that were in all
likelihood dispatched to the Confederacy soon thereafter.[12] Furthermore, based on a photo of an Alabama officer (see image below), the Tait overcoats wear cut along the lines of the British army, and S. Isaac Campbell and Company overcoats. This follows suit, as the Tait jackets were cut to the pattern of the British army tunic.
This image of Captain Edward Brett Randolph, 7th Alabama Cavalry shows him wearing a six-button front overcoat that is a perfect match with the S. Isaac Campbell & Company model. In fact, the overcoat is most likely an Alabama contract, Peter Tait Company overcoat. Randolph served as a commissary officer in the Department of Alabama, Mississippi & East Louisiana at the end of the war, and he would have bought it from the Alabama State Quartermaster. I am grateful to Brian White of Wambaugh, White & Company for bringing the image to my attention in April 2014. The image is courtesy of the Alabama Department of Archives and History.
Regrettably, we may never know what the Chiles and Chidester greatcoats actually looked, nor the Rosenburg & Haiman Bros. & Co. greatcoats. The Chiles and Chidester greatcoats may have differed from their specifications, perhaps having been simplified to single-breasted overcoats. The Rosenburg & Haiman overcoat may have been copied from its Prussian army counterpart, but this is all a matter of conjecture since none of the aforementioned greatcoats have survived to present day. We have only the S. Isaac, Campbell overcoat to consider, as it represents the sole survivor of all those imported into the Confederacy.
To this one surviving overcoat we must turn our attention. It had the following basic characteristics: it was entirely hand-sewn; had one-quarter inch seam allowances throughout; was made of blue-gray kersey cloth; had a two-over-one, natural white woolen flannel lining in the torso; and, its original buttons were all Tice # CSI215, lined, old English script I on a plain field, 22 mm, that had the backmark ".S. Isaacs Campbell & Co../ London/ 71 Jermyn. St".
To this one surviving overcoat we must turn our attention. It had the following basic characteristics: it was entirely hand-sewn; had one-quarter inch seam allowances throughout; was made of blue-gray kersey cloth; had a two-over-one, natural white woolen flannel lining in the torso; and, its original buttons were all Tice # CSI215, lined, old English script I on a plain field, 22 mm, that had the backmark ".S. Isaacs Campbell & Co../ London/ 71 Jermyn. St".
Image 10: This full-length image provides overall details of the coat's front.
|
Image 11: The accompanying sketch corresponding to the previous photo includes dimensions and other construction details.
|
Image 12: The full-length image shows the back of the coat.
|
Image 13: The sketch of the back of the coat includes dimensions and construction details.
|
Image 14: The fall-collar could be turned up as a stand-collar. The left side had a button hole, but the corresponding button is now missing. The edge around the collar is a basting stitch: quick and easy to fabricate.
|
Image 15: The fall-collar is seen here from the back.
|
Image 16: The collar is turned up in this image. The top is made of two pieces.
|
Image 17: This sketch details dimensions and construction for the collar.
|
Image 18: A close-up of the right side of the collar shows the top pieces to be raw-cut and whip-stitched flat around the outer edge.
|
Image 19: A close-up of the left side of the collar shows the whip stitch used to join the raw-cut, inside edge to the lining.
|
Image 20: This gives a better view of the button hole, on the left side of the collar.
Image 22: The top pieces raw edge is visible in this view.
|
Image 21: This gives a better view of the button hole, and basting stitch on the left side of the collar.
Image 23: The seamstress used a whip stitch to join the facing lapel over the lining and the inside collar edge over the lining and lapel.
|
Image 24: The front of the coat originally closed with six script I buttons. Some of these are intact, several are missing, and some were replaced (apparently during the war).
|
Image 25: This is the second button from the top: one of intact originals. The first top button is missing.
|
Image 26: Harry Ridgeway, owner of Relicman.com, generously shared this image showing the backmark of an English, script I, S. Isaacs Campbell & Company button. It is the same as seen on the over coat buttons. Regrettably, I could not get a clear image of one of the coat's backmarks.
Image 28: The fourth button from the top, another replacement, is a Virginia state button. This may offer a clue as to what state the soldier was from who wore the coat.
|
Image 27: The third button from the top is a replacement of natural white bone.
Image 29: The fifth button from the top is a captured Federal, general service eagle button.
|
Image 30: The sixth button from the top, also the bottom button, is an intact Script I. Unfortunately, I did not manage to get a clear picture of this button.
|
Image 31: The cape is secured with two buttons.
|
Image 32: The top cape button is a replacement Virginia state button: another indicator that a Virginian wore this coat.
|
Image 33: bottom cape button is an intact script I: original to the coat.
|
Image 34: This shows a front view of the cape.
|
Image 35: This has the rear view of the cape.
|
Image 36: This close-up of the rear of the cape includes details of the carefully felled, turned up edge.
|
Image 37: The cape has patches of cloth tacked to the underside. The patches appear to be part of the coat's conservation.
|
Image 38: The inside od the cape has facing lapels on either side of the front edge. The have raw cut edges that are whip stitched along the outside and felled on the inside.
Image 39 The coat's interior is lined down to the waist with natural white, woolen twill flannel.
|
Image 40: A sketch of the interior provides dimensions and construction details.
|
Image 41: The lining, here covered with conservation netting, was originally tucked inward along the bottom edge, and felled in place. The lining has come loose along parts of the bottom edge, probably due to heavy use.
|
Image 42: The lining was secured to the sleeve skye by tucking the edge under the seam allowance and whip stitching the seam allowance over the lining. The sleeves were left unlined.
|
Images 43 & 44: The next two images provide details of how the lining was joined to the facing lapels on either side. The ling was tucked under the lapel and whip stitched into place.
|
|
Image 45: Considering the facing lapel construction below the ling, it was felled to the coat's skirt.
|
Image 46: The overcoat's skirt is markedly different its American counterpart in that it had buttons at the hips to secure the bottoms of the skirt. The buttonholes are intact at each corner, but the buttons themselves are now missing. This feature was common in European army overcoats.
|
Image 47: These WW1 French soldiers wear their overcoats with the front of the skirts secured at the hips in the rear. The French soldier is perhaps best known for this practice, but many nations used this system during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Image courtesy of the Library of Congress.
|
Image 48: This view if the left rear bottom portion of the skirt shows the seam that ran along the side, between the front and rear pieces.
|
Image 49: This view if the right rear bottom portion of the skirt shows the bottom's raw edge.
|
Image 50: This gives a broader view of the skirt's interior.
Image 51: Another interior view shows the side seam and patches of cloth felled to the inside. The patches are believed to be part of the coat's conservation.
Image 52: This gives a broader view of the skirt's interior on the right side.
Image 53: An interior view of the skirt's left corner displays the buttonhole, the raw edge at the bottom, and a missing strip of cloth from the bottom of the facing lapel.
|
Image 54: A closer view of the last image shows the bluer tinted color of the cadet gray kersey as it must have looked prior to discoloration through fading and soiling. The pieced lapel seam is also clearly visible: evidence that such long pieces were made from shorter pieces, probably scrap.
|
Image 55: An interior view of the skirt's right corner displays a strip of cloth tacked to the bottom edge, presumably as part of the coat's conservation project.
|
Image 56: A closer view of the last image includes details of the pieced lapel, and how it is whip stitched along the outside edge and felled along the inside edge.
|
Image 57: Here is the right sleeve top.
Image 58: This sketch provides details for both sleeves.
Image 59: Here is the left sleeve top, which exhibits a remarkable flaw in construction: the seamstress sewed it on backwards!
Image 60: This view shows the right rear cuff.
|
Image 61: This view shows the right front cuff.
|
Image 62: This view shows the left rear cuff.
|
Image 63: This view shows the left front cuff.
|
Image 64: The left sleeve cap and shoulder seam are visible here.
|
Image 65: This provides another view of the left sleeve cap.
|
Image 66: This view of the sleeve cap shows a length of cotton web tape that has been sewn over the sleeve seam to protect it from abrasion and hinder its coming apart through use.
|
Image 67: The quarter-inch seam in the sleeve cap is clearly visible here, to include the hand stitching in natural white cotton (or linen) thread.
|
Image 68: The back belt consists of two pieces. The bases are sewn into the side seams. The left piece has a buttonhole, while the right piece originally had two buttons for securing and adjusting.
|
Image 69: The sketch of the back belt provides dimensions and construction details.
|
Image 70: The belt had the same English script I buttons found on the rest of the coat. Each belt piece was made of two layers of kersey, with raw cut edges, and loosely basted together around the edges.
|
Image 71: This image shows the right belt piece with a button missing from the farthest end.
|
Image 72: This view shows the underside of the right belt piece.
|
Image 73: The sketch of the right belt piece underside includes dimensions and construction details.
|
Image 74: A close-up view of the right belt piece underside provides a clearer view of the raw edges.
|
Image 75: This image shows the top of the left belt piece.
|
Image 76: This image shows the underside of the left belt piece.
|
Image 77: This image shows the seam allowance employed throughout the garment: one quarter of an inch.
|
Image 78: This close-up view of the cadet gray colored, woolen kersey cloth shows the weave and remnants of the nap.
|
Image 79: A close-up of the lining material shows details of the twill weave flannel fabric and the natural white, woolen yarns.
|
Image 80: This closer view of the cadet gray kersey weave and yarns is seen here.
|
Image 81: This protected portion of the cloth's surface has retained most of its nap, and shows how all of the cloth appeared when new, before the garment suffered from wear and tear.
|
This S. Isaac Campbell & Company overcoat allows Confederate uniformologists to examine one of the few depot issue over coats that has survived to present day, and what is probably the most typical depot-issue overcoat available to Southern troops over the course of the war. The author is grateful for Mr. Ray Richey, owner of the Texas Civil War Museum, for his generosity in sharing this artifact with the public; to Mr. Alan Archambault for bringing many contemporary descriptions and artifacts to life through his paintings; and, for the other historians who have contributed images to this article.
Please note: This work is copyrighted and none of the images herein may be used without the permission of the author, except for Image 47 from the Library of Congress.
Bibliography:
1. American Military Equipage, 1851-1872, Part Two, The Confederate States Army, by Frederick P. Todd, illustrated by George Woodbridge, The Company of Military Historians, Providence, Rhode Island, 1977, Chapter IX, Confederate Clothing and Insignia, Overcoats, page 429: From Frank Rauscher, the band leader of Collis’ Pennsylvania Zouaves, Music on the March, p. 134, commented on some Confederates he saw in December 1863 in Virginia: “The prisoners here taken were better clothed than any we had before seen; all were provided with overcoats and jackets of much better material than our own. They were of English manufacture, a much darker blue than the U.S. [sky blue overcoat] and they furnished conclusive evidence of successful blockade running.”
2. CS Army Uniform Regulations, 1861 & 1862: 60. For mounted men - of cadet gray cloth; stand-up collar; double breasted; cape to reach to the cuff of the coat, when the arm is extended, and to button all the way up, (buttons, eighteen.) Sketch shows the overcoat cape buttoned with a single row of nine, small-size buttons; stand collar; no French cuffs; 61. For footmen - of cadet gray cloth; stand-up collar; double breasted; cape to reach to the elbows when the arm is extended, and to button all the way up, (buttons, eighteen.) Sketch shows the overcoat cape buttoned with a single row of seven, small-size buttons; stand collar; no French cuffs.
3. Wharton, 107-J.41; James L. Nichols, The Confederate Quartermaster in the Trans-Mississippi, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1964, p. 38, (hereafter, Nichols); Hdqrs. Trans-Miss. Dept., Clothing Bureau, Shreveport, La., 10 June 1864, W.H. Haynes, Major and Quartermaster, C.S. Army, Chief Clothing Bureau, Trans-Mississippi Department Brig. to Gen. W.R. Boggs, Chief of Staff, OR 1, Volume 34, Part 4, p. 656-659.
4. Statement of clothing issued to troops in District of Arkansas and Louisiana, June 10, 1864 by Major W.H. Haynes, OR, Series 1, Volume 34, Part 4, Chapter 45, pp. 657.
5. Agreement: Confederate States of America War Department, Richmond, Va., March 12, 1863, between W.H. Haynes, Major and Q.M.P.C.S.A. and John T. Chichester [sic: Chidester], Source not available, notes from Mark Jaeger.
6. Entrepot: Government Imports into the Confederate States, by C.L. Webster III, Edinborough Press, Roseville, Minnesota, 2010, (hereafter, Entropot).
7. Entrepot, p. 98.
8. Entrepot, pp. 117-118.
9. Entrepot, p. 99.
10. During this era, the universal Prussian Army overcoat was dark, charcoal gray in color, with a heathered texture (grau melliert). It was single-breasted with six buttons; its sleeves had turned back French cuffs; it had a large fall collar; and, it had no cape.
11. Entrepot, p. 100.
12. Entrepot, p. 99.
Please note: This work is copyrighted and none of the images herein may be used without the permission of the author, except for Image 47 from the Library of Congress.
Bibliography:
1. American Military Equipage, 1851-1872, Part Two, The Confederate States Army, by Frederick P. Todd, illustrated by George Woodbridge, The Company of Military Historians, Providence, Rhode Island, 1977, Chapter IX, Confederate Clothing and Insignia, Overcoats, page 429: From Frank Rauscher, the band leader of Collis’ Pennsylvania Zouaves, Music on the March, p. 134, commented on some Confederates he saw in December 1863 in Virginia: “The prisoners here taken were better clothed than any we had before seen; all were provided with overcoats and jackets of much better material than our own. They were of English manufacture, a much darker blue than the U.S. [sky blue overcoat] and they furnished conclusive evidence of successful blockade running.”
2. CS Army Uniform Regulations, 1861 & 1862: 60. For mounted men - of cadet gray cloth; stand-up collar; double breasted; cape to reach to the cuff of the coat, when the arm is extended, and to button all the way up, (buttons, eighteen.) Sketch shows the overcoat cape buttoned with a single row of nine, small-size buttons; stand collar; no French cuffs; 61. For footmen - of cadet gray cloth; stand-up collar; double breasted; cape to reach to the elbows when the arm is extended, and to button all the way up, (buttons, eighteen.) Sketch shows the overcoat cape buttoned with a single row of seven, small-size buttons; stand collar; no French cuffs.
3. Wharton, 107-J.41; James L. Nichols, The Confederate Quartermaster in the Trans-Mississippi, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1964, p. 38, (hereafter, Nichols); Hdqrs. Trans-Miss. Dept., Clothing Bureau, Shreveport, La., 10 June 1864, W.H. Haynes, Major and Quartermaster, C.S. Army, Chief Clothing Bureau, Trans-Mississippi Department Brig. to Gen. W.R. Boggs, Chief of Staff, OR 1, Volume 34, Part 4, p. 656-659.
4. Statement of clothing issued to troops in District of Arkansas and Louisiana, June 10, 1864 by Major W.H. Haynes, OR, Series 1, Volume 34, Part 4, Chapter 45, pp. 657.
5. Agreement: Confederate States of America War Department, Richmond, Va., March 12, 1863, between W.H. Haynes, Major and Q.M.P.C.S.A. and John T. Chichester [sic: Chidester], Source not available, notes from Mark Jaeger.
6. Entrepot: Government Imports into the Confederate States, by C.L. Webster III, Edinborough Press, Roseville, Minnesota, 2010, (hereafter, Entropot).
7. Entrepot, p. 98.
8. Entrepot, pp. 117-118.
9. Entrepot, p. 99.
10. During this era, the universal Prussian Army overcoat was dark, charcoal gray in color, with a heathered texture (grau melliert). It was single-breasted with six buttons; its sleeves had turned back French cuffs; it had a large fall collar; and, it had no cape.
11. Entrepot, p. 100.
12. Entrepot, p. 99.