The Young Campaigner

Redware and Brown Earthenware and its Use in the 19th Century

by William Chapman

Surely almost everyone in the living history community is familiar with the sometimes primitive, sometimes beautiful glazed pottery that has come to be known as Redware. This earth-toned pottery has been known for ages for its strength, its rich color, and its versitility. Commonly, this type of pottery is associated with the 18th century, but it has enjoyed a much longer history than that. Miriam Webster's dictionary defines redware as "earthenware pottery made of clay containing considerable iron oxide". It is this iron oxide that gives it its beautiful rust-colored appearance. Redware has been found extensively in archaeological digs all over the western hemisphere, and there is no doubt that its use was widespread. However, by the mid nineteenth century, who was using it? What was it used for? Was there any particular social class that used it more than others?

19th century redware pitcher with brown glaze.

Let's start with some background on redware. Redware is one of the oldest forms of pottery, found in Europe long before recorded history (some dating back to the 12th century BC). It is composed of one of the several major types of potter's clay, red-firing clay, which is prevalent in America. Red-firing clay, because of its high iron content, turns red when exposed to high heat. In its unglazed form, redware is also known as terra cotta, and has been used for flowerpots and tiles for hundreds of years. Redware has been in production on American soil since the 1600's. In the recent excavations at Jamestown, evidence of earthenware made in Europe as well as on-site has been dug in large quantities. Redware is glazed, just like most pottery, and certain glazes can be identified with different areas. Most glazes were clear, but a black glaze appears on English-made pottery. Elaborate artwork can be done on the pottery either by scratching the surface and glazing over it or "slip trailing", which is done by drawing designs on with a different color of clay, usually yellow.

In its mineral composition, brown earthenware is not much different from redware other than the fact that it contains less iron oxide, giving it less of a rust color.

By the dawn of the 19th century, England had moved on to producing more fashionable pearlware and china, leaving America to produce inexpensive and durable earthenware. America's elite and growing middle class bought the British-made goods, while the lower class relied on red, brown, yellow, and cream colored earthenware for their everyday needs.

Redware has turned up in the excavation of Five Points, a 19th century neighborhood in New York city, in use for common domesic items such as chamber pots, pitchers, and even piggy banks. The use of redware in a middle and lower class area such as the Points would suggest that it was definately present in 19th century daily life. Most of the Five Points redware is fairly plain, sometimes bearing pressed designs or other small decoration, but it is far simpler than the elaborate slip-trailed redware of past centuries.

Redware makes appearances in lower-class 19th century context quite often, and there is even concrete evidence of its use by civilians in the Civil War years.

This image shows an officer in camp during the war with his wife and children. On the table is some kind of white-glazed pot, while a brown or red earthenware pot sits on the ground.

From the evidence that we have today, it appears that redware was most common among the lower and middle classes. Finding it in Five Points, other archeaological sites, and period photographs all seem to point towards this conclusion. Redware was inexpensive, practical for use in the kitchen and in the field, and easily obtained by the working class.

Choosing A Jacket For Your Confederate Impression

by William Chapman

There are a lot of options out there for Confederate jackets. It can be daunting trying to select a style that would be best for your impression. There are a lot of factors to take into consideration when researching which jacket would be best for you. What would be best for the theatre of the war that you reenact? What would be best for your unit or your event? This article should help to provide a general overview of some jackets you might consider and help you choose the right one. ***Note: More information will be added to this article as it becomes available, please check back!***

Richmond Depot Jackets

Time period: 1862-1865

Area of issue: Richmond depot jackets appear commonly in Army of Northern Virginia usage. Because of the location of the depot, Richmond depot jackets were not commonly issued outside of the Army of Northern Virginia.

Patterns: RD jackets were made in three basic patterns over the course of the war. The type I was first issued in 1862 and was probably phased out of production later the same year. It is charachterized by the use of piping and shoulder straps. The type II was issued starting in 1862 until 1864. The type II is identifiable by its lack of trim and piping, use of belt loops and shoulder straps, and plain muslin lining. The type III is the plainest of the RD jackets and was issued starting roughly in 1864. Type III jackets have no shoulder straps, belt loops, or piping.

Note: There are many period immitations of RD jackets that commonly appear in photographs, original examples, etc. These are commonly classified as RD jackets because of their style, however, they were often made by tailors, etc., rather than by the actual depot.

For more information: A Survey of Confederate Central Government Quartermaster Issue Jackets Part 2 by Leslie Jensen or see p. 134-137 of the Confederate Echoes of Glory.

Commutation Jackets

Time period: 1861-1865

Area of issue: The term "commutation jacket" refers to any jacket that was made at home and either issued to the troops through the Commutation system (see below) or sent by relief societies, etc. Therefore, commutation jackets were worn in almost all theatres of the war.

Patterns: The Commutation stystem was enacted early on in the war in order to keep up with the huge demand that the depots could not always answer to. Commutation jackets are a very wide-ranging category because they were all home-made. Patterns range from very elaborate to quite simple. The best way to choose what details are most appropriate is to research the commutation jackets that were in use in your area/unit.

Notes: ***This category includes untrimmed frock coats***

Columbus Depot Jackets

Photo from Lazy Jacks Mess.

Time period: 1862-1865

Area of issue: CD jackets were commonly issued to units from Kenucky, Georgia, Mississippi, etc. They were common in the Western theatre and the Army of Tennessee.

Patterns: The Western counterpart to the RD jacket is the CD jacket. CD's are similar in style to the RD pattern, only they commonly have a pointed "tail" extending a few inches from the back and they also bear facing on the collar and cuffs that corresponds with the branch of service. Type I CD's are evidenced to have had six-button fronts and interior pockets, whereas the Type II commonly has six or seven butons and one exterior pocket.

For more information: Confederate "Columbus Depot" Jackets: The Material Evidence by Geoffrey Walden or see p. 143 of the Confederate Echoes of Glory.

Four Button Jackets

Photo from Old South Antiques

Time Period: Roughly 1863-?

Area of issue: The four button jacket's origins are foggy, but all but one of the six surviving originals can be documented to the Richmond area. Army of Northern Virginia and some limited Trans-Mississippi usage would be appropriate.

Patterns: It is not clear wether these jackets were made to a specific pattern or not, they do have some consistent details between the ones that still exist today. The defining details of the four button jacket are: four buttons (duh), a pocket on the right side, and a longer and looser body than a shell jacket. Two of the jackets that are documentable to the Richmond area have blue facings on the collar.

For more information: The Mysterious Confederate Four-Button Jacket by John Stillwagon or p. 138 of the Confederate Echoes of Glory.

Peter Tait Jackets

Time Period: 1864-1865

Area of Issue: Peter Tait Jackets were manufactured in Limerick, Ireland and run through the Federal blockade to be issued to Confederate troops. They appear in all theatres of the war.

Patterns: The Peter Tait Contract jacket is charachterized by being fully machine sewn (with the exception of the buttonholes, of course), having a five piece body, and blue or red facings on the collar. Tait jackets were often issued with the English "script I" style buttons.

For more information: See "Peter Tait: The Man, The Firm, and the Uniforms supplied to the Confederate States." by David Burt in the September/October 2008 issue of Civil War Historian Magazine.

Charleston Depot Jackets

Time Period: ?-1865

Area of Issue: The two surviving Charleston jackets are linked to South Carolina troops.

Patterns: The Charleston jacket is made of blue-gray kersey wool with an unbleached muslin lining. It has five buttons down the front, shoulder straps, and belt loops.

For more information: The Charleston Depot Jacket by Leslie Jensen (scroll down).

Jackets From Taylor's Department Depots

Time Period: 1861-1862 for some depots; 1863-1864 for others.

Area of Issue: These jackets were issued to troops serving in the Army of Tennesse and the Trans-Mississippi and Western theatres.

Patterns: For this category, I have lumped the jackets from several smaller depots in the Louisiana/Texas/Arkansas/Mississippi area. These include jackets from the Baton Rouge (a small state arsenal that was out of operation by 1862), Shreveport (established in 1863), Huntsville, and Jackson. These jackets are all fairly simple and plain in appearance with some minor variations between them. Huntsville made shell jackets from all-cotton jean cloth produced in the state penitentiary. Most of these jackets have blue facings on the collar, five or six buttons, and a breast pocket of some kind on either side.

For more information: Uniforms of the Trans-Mississippi, Part 2 by K.C. MacDonald or see p. 140 of the Confederate Echoes of Glory.

Houston Depot Jackets

Time Period: ?-1865

Area of Issue: Trans-Mississippi

Patterns: The Houston Depot jacket is characterized by being made of blue gray wool kersey (possibly), has six or seven buttons, and has a longer waist than the Richmond or Columbus depot jackets.

For more information:Evidence For Houston Depot Jackets by KC McDonald

North Carolina Shell Jackets

Time Period: 1862-1865

Area of Issue: prob. Army of Northern Virginia

Patterns: This jacket is fairly simple and follows the same basic pattern as the Richmond depot.

North Carolina Sack Coats

Time period: 1861-1862

Area of issue: North Carolina State Troops

Patterns: This coat is cut like a sack rather than a shell jacket ans it hangs loosely around the body like a Federal fatigue blouse. It is characterized by black stripes on the shoulders.

An Examination of Five Occupational Photos

The common people in 19th Century America worked hard. Often, the way thy behaved or dressed was affected by their line of work. Tradesmen were proud of their hard work as well. That is why occupational photographs were popular with working-class Americans before the Civil War. Here is an examination of four of those photos from the Library of Congress. These images are all 1850's and they all show the common man's pride for his work.

This image shows a carpenter with his various tools. He is wearing a white work shirt with a large collar, which he wears down over a cravat or kerchief. Such work shirts were commonly worn by tradesmen in 19th Century America as a rugged, practical garment. These shirts were not worn with braces and commonly fit more loosely that regular shirts. This carpenter appears to be wearing hickory or jean cloth trowsers. A small chair sits beside him (possibly some of his work) and a plane and two chizels sxit on top of it. The carpenter wears a low-crowned straw hat with a wide band around it. He has a close-cropped beard of the style that was popular fo young and middle-aged men in the 1850's and 1860's. In his hands, he holds a hammer and a small cut nail. This man makes his profession very evident in his portrait by displaying his tools.

This daguerrotype shows a traveling salesman displaying his wares. He holds two palletes filled with books, pencils, hairbrushes, and other various items (pomade?). A small japanned conical object in the center of the lower pallette is possibly a small child's trumpet. The salesman wears a paletot coat and two straps over his shoulders for carrying his peddler's trunks. Under his coat, the salesman wears a shawl-collar vest (possibly silk) with covered buttons. Around his neck is a black cravat. His hair is parted on the right side and slicked backwards. It also appears that he is wearing a pocket watch (a small chain is visible to the left of his fourth button down). This man was probably a door to door peddler such as the one in this photograph:

This peddler is quite similar to the other one. He is very well dressed in a frock coat and has a cravat on. In this photograph, his trunks can be clearly seen with the japanning being worn off. Both salesmen are displaying their "tools of the trade", but there are some major differences between them and some other tradespeople of the time period. One thing that is very noticeable is that both salesmen are fairly well dressed, which probably means that they made a little bit better living than a common tradesman (they also needed to be well dressed for their job).

This image shows a surveyor and all of his equipment. Surveyors made good money in the 19th century for their work, partially because surveying required a great deal of education as opposed to some other occupations. Behind him is a transit on a tripod. He his holding a map and a set of calipers. He wears a dark wool sack coat and an off-white shawl collar vest underneath it. A simple black cravat is around his neck. Like other occupational photos, this man is displaying his tools with pride for his line of work.

Two teamsters and their oxen standing in front of a wooden fence or barn wall appear in this image. Both of the teamsters are wearing large smocks with pockets on the front. These garments are fairly unusual. Both are wearing oilcloth mechanic's caps and high riding boots. The one on the left holds a crop in his hand. The oxen are yoked and prepared to go. This image is fairly unusual for an occupational photo. It is large and taken outdoors. Most are taken inside and show only the torso of the subject. Obviously, these two teamsters wanted to show their oxen as well as themselves.

As different from one another as all of the trades and occupations in the 19th century were, one thing that everyone was familiar with was photography. Photography allowed tradesmen to show pride in their occupation. Today, they provide a valuable resource to researchers looking for the way a person with a specific way of life would have looked.

A Photographic Study of Union Signal Corps and Telegraph Equipment and Personnel

by William Chapman

I recently assembled a collection of photographs from the Library of Congress collection to examine the equipment and personnel of the Union and Signal Corps. Included in this article are those pictures as well as a detailed description of my findings. All of the images are clickable so you can get a closer look.

This photograph shows a Union signal detatchment gathered around a signal station on a rooftop. The signalist atop the tower holds a white flag (presumably with a contrasting red square in the center. Flags were very rarely captured in the photographic images of the period because the movement generally renders them invisible in the photo.). The third signalist from the left holds a signal torch mounted on a wooden pole and another torch rests at his foot. All but two of the men wear Union roundabouts. The officer wears a frock coat and the eighth signalist to the left wears a civillian sack coat.

This photograph shows Union signalists standing in front of a hospital near Washington D.C. They are part of the defenses of Washington. Note the flag in the yellow box. This is a rare photographic image where the flag is clear and visible. One can see that it is probably either red with a white square or black with a white square (signals used three different color combinations on ther flags: red on white, white on red, and white on black). The different color combinations were used depending on the signalist's surroundings. Notice that the ninth signalist from the left is leaning on an NCO sword (in its scabbard?) and wears a sash. Also notice that there appears to be a woman in the photograph seated under the second window on the side wall of the building. Between the back corner of the building and the first tree, another pole is visible (perhaps another signal flag).

The Union telegraphers shown in this picture are at a telegraph station near Wilcox's Landing, Va in 1864. They have erected a crude structure out of an old A tent (possibly a dining fly?) and a stack of fence rails. They have set their telegraph (in the left yellow box) up on top of a wooden box. Notice the open cart to the right of the structure. Inside the yellow box on top of it is a spool of telegraph wire. The mule that presumably pulls the cart is standing to the left of the structure.

This photograph shows a Union telegraph battery wagon near Petersburg in 1864. The batteries stored inside this vehicle would have been used to power telegraphs. Notice the gentleman inside the wagon who is either writing or operating a telegraph. A great number of wires are hanging out of the wagon as well and the main wires appear to be entering the door of the wagon at the top where the smallest yellow square is located. Note that both of the men in the photograph are in completely civilian clothing. Other portraits of Federal telegraph operators of the time also show them in civilian clothing, like this one:

This photograph gives us a good sense of how an average telegraph station was set up. Notice the supply wagons and men on top of telephone poles stringing wire. Also notice that all of the men are uniformed.

In conclusion, it can be safely said that Union signalists and telegraph operaters were equipped and uniformed vastly differently depending on their location. In the defenses of Washington and other garrisons, the signal corps was uniformed and equipped quite well; but on campaign, the eqipment and clothing was varied. It seems that signalists were generally more well uniformed than telegraph operators. In several of the photographs of telegraph stations, the only uniformed men are the teamsters who drove the supply wagons.

Tips For Taking Hits

The smoke of battle hangs low in front of you. There are shouts from all sides. The enemy is close. Suddenly, there is a crackle and a brief flash of light. Nobody goes down except for one man who is killed instantly. Have you ever been in this situation before? There is always one of those events where the only thing anybody has to say when they leave the field is, "Those Yanks just won't take hits!" or "The Rebs must think they are invincible!" What do you do when nobody is taking hits? Learn how and when to go down well.

One of the most annoying things at any event is when people just won't take hits. People die in battles. All I can say is that it is simply common sense. If the enemy is 50 feet away, you better be dropping like flies. Try to keep it realistic. Simply getting people to take the right ammount of hits is only half of the problem. Usually, the guys who do take hits represent the proportion of WIA (wounded in action) and KIA (killed in action).

In nearly all conflicts, there are more people wounded than killed. Not everybody who gets hit gets killed instantly. Almost any account of the Civil War will tell of the vast numbers of wounded men that lay on the field moaning and writhing in pain. In his book, "Drum Taps in Dixie", Delavan S. Miller says: "...the wounded from the front line kept coming to the rear, covered with blood and the smoke of battle." Wayland Fuller Dunaway wrote: "Shells burst among them so thick and fast that in a few minutes the field was literally strewn with dead and wounded." Why don't we represent scenes like this at reenactments?

Here are some statistics. Of all the casualties in the War Between the States, approximately 12,089 of them were caused by gunshot wounds to the head (the vast majority of them resulted in death). This may seam like a great number, but it is far less than the number of gunshot wounds to the extremities (arms and legs). 86,413 wounds were recieved in the lower extremities during the war, and 87,793 were recieved in the upper extremities. Injuries to the abdomen number only 8,438. It seems obvious that we should be taking more hits to the arms and legs than anywhere else.

So, stop just simply falling down and staying there. Crawl around, scream, clutch your "wounds", walk with a limp, and make a scene of yourself. You will add immensely to the authentic atmosphere of the scenario. Prearrange things with your friends. Have one of your pards take a hit and struggle to carry him off the field while he screams and limps. Get five or so of your friends to represent a group of unlucky soldiers who get hit with a canister round or an artillery shell by all falling at the same time.

Remember to factor in some physics in your hit taking. Shots to the head or other extremities would generally cause the extremity to be jerked back. However, a shot to the chest or abdomen from fairly close range could also cause someone to pitch forward very violently from the force of the impact. Grazes would usually not cause any more reaction than a common scratch or cut.

Remember that bullets commonly struck accoutrements as well. Clothing, belt buckles, blanket rolls, canteens, hats, drums, and haversacks were all in the line of fire, too. Try ducking, grabbing accoutrements and looking at them in a bewildered manner to examine the "bullethole", and even being knocked backwards by the impact of a ball striking your belt buckle or a cartridge box plate in order to represent this.

The key to taking hits well is being creative. Don't be like everyone else and just fall down immediately. Be realistic.

Source for statistics:

Civil War Medicine
by C. Keith Wilbur

Civil War Era Childrens' Clothing Pt. 1, Ages 4 to 6: From Short Dresses to Knickerbocker Suits

The middle of the 19th century saw a change in the way children grew up. The common family structure began to move away from the disciplinarian patriarch-centered structure that was so common in the 18th century and started to move towards a more nurturing and modern family structure where both the mother and the father had equal input in raising the children. Children were included in family affairs, given chairs at the dinner table rather than benches or stools, and became generally more outspoken. Childrens' clothing changed too. In the centuries before the 1800's, very little importance was placed on the stages of a child's life. Children were children and that was that. When the change in parenting came about, people came to the realization that children actually matured in terms of age groups, rather than just suddenly becoming adults when they were old enough. The new importance placed on the stages of childhood led to new developments with childrens' clothing.

It used to be that, before the early 1800's, all children wore simple gowns until they reached the age of four. Then, girls were given more adult looking dresses and boys were "breeched", so to speak. Children who were over the age of four dressed like small adults. In the mid-1800's, a new system developed.

Just like before, all children (boys and girls) wore dresses until about the age of four. Rather than giving them adult clothes then, boys were given "knickerbocker suits" or simple smocks and loose pantaloons or trowsers. Girls wore short dresses with corded petticoats or no hoops at all. When boys reached the age of six or so, they were given adult-style clothing. Girls switched to adult clothing from their short dresses a little bit later than boys did, but it was still in the same general age group.

A girl in a fancy short dress and a young boy in an elaborate knickerbocker suit. (postwar tintype, ca. 1870's, artist unknown, Collection of William Chapman)

The dress of boys at the age of 4 to 6 generally had one thing in common, though it varied greatly it was generally composed of a medium-length tunic or jacket and a set of short pants underneath. Boys had one set of clothes for formal wear and another for informal wear. The knickerbocker suit was the most fashionable formal wear available at the time. Generally reserved for spectial occasions when more formal dress was required, the knickerbocker suit was a loose tunic, rather like a short dress, that was worn with a set of knee-length knickerbockers. The rest of the leg was covered with stockings. More often than not, knickerbocker suits were worn with feathered chapeau-style hats. As with much 19th century American clothing, knickerbocker suits had a heavy French influence. Gold braid and twill tape was commonly applied to these garments for decoration, much in the French zouave style. A military influence was very evident in the appearance of knickerbocker suits. Double breasted fronts with brass buttons and applied stripes that immitated the appearance of sword belts were common. These suits were sometimes worn with sashes. A type of formal jacket called a zouave jacket was also common. Zouave jackets bore a resemblance to those worn by many Zouave units during the Civil War.
For informal wear, many boys wore rather large regular shirts untucked like a tunic with no braces. Occasionally, you see one of these being worn with a belt. Small versions of adult trowsers were worn with these tunics. Some evidence shows that this was also the common garb of lower class boys.
Almost all men and boys in the 19th century wore their hair parted on one side.

Three girls in short dresses. The one on the left seems to have a small print fabric while the other two appear to have solid colors. All three are wearing necklaces and earrings. The girl in the middle has a ring on her forefinger. (medium unknown, ca. 1850's to 1860's, artist unknown, Collection of William Chapman)

Girls clothing was very similar throughout their childhood, but it did have some noticeable differences by age. Very young girls, once they graduated from their infant clothing, moved to knee length dresses. These were made of solid-colored or patterned fabric. Some had low necklines that hit at about the shoulder. In almost all examples, either bare legs, pantilettes or stockings are visible under the hemline of the dress.

A young girl (possibly a boy, but unlikely) in a white dress with a blue sash and a feathered hat. She wears black leather shoes and white stockings. Short pantilettes are visible at knee (black line is also visible at the top of left stocking. Garter?). (tintype, ca. mid-1860's to 1870's (probably post-Civil War), artist unknown, Collection of William Chapman)

Once girls reached the age of six or so, they moved to mid-calf or ankle length dresses. These, much like the knee-length dresses, were designed to facilitate freedom of movement. Hoops were seldom worn until the teenage and young adult years, so most girls either wore corded petticoats for formal occasions or did without. Informal dresses were often made of a light material such as cotton. The fabric used in informal dresses tended to be inexpensive, so small prints or solid colors were common. Formal dresses were much like adult dresses, only shortened at the hemline to about the ankle.
Most girls wore their hair parted down the middle.

The Basics of Authentic Drumsticks

Over the past few years, I have noticed some common errors, inauthenticities, and potential improvements that can be made by many musicians in the hobby. One such improvement that can be made is the quality of drumsticks.
Let's admit it: It just isn't easy to find a good pair of drumsticks. Most modern drumstics are too light or shaped incorrectly. Many drumsticks of the 1860's were tapered from end to end, unlike today's drumsticks, which are typically only tapered at the last 3 to 4 inches before the tip. To the contrary, a pair will often turn up that is tapered in the modern fashion. In almost every example of this style, the stick is abnormally fat at the base and has a very small tip. The larger, pseudo-modern-style sticks were typically used as "field sticks". That meant that they were generally carried in battle, in drill, and during camp duty. It seems that these were most commonly the kind of sticks used by regimental field musicians. Most band musicians carried finer "concert sticks". Concert sticks were generally lighter, thinner, and tapered from end to end. There is some evidence that many drummers (mostly in garrisons and perminent camps, not on campaign) carried two pairs of sticks; one for the field and one for dress parade and camp duty.

An original pair of dark wood sticks.

The vast majority of drumsticks in the 1860's were made out of dark wood such as cocobolo (a type of burled rosewood), ebony, or rosewood. Concert sticks were generally of finer quality than common field sticks. Some original examples of field sticks (see p. 51 of "Civil War Era Musical Instruments & Military Bands" by Garofalo and Elrod for a good picture of a collection of originals) appear extremely crude and primitive. Some field sticks were made of light colored, heavy woods such as maple.
It seems to be a common misconception that ALL period drumsticks had a series of small rings carved at the ends. Yes, rings were common, but only about two out of ten sticks had them. One thing that is almost never seen in the reenacting community is drumsticks with brass, bone, or ivory ornamentation on them (Yes, I understand that ivory is illegal, but bone isn't hard to get). Sticks with tips or ends of a different material (such as brass, bone, or ivory) were quite common.

A pair of reproduction sticks with carved rings. Unknown maker.

So, what is the solution for finding more correct drumsticks? If you are a skilled enough craftsman, you can make your own sticks. Also, Cooperman makes a good line of drumsticks but they are all light-colored wood. I use an original pair of concert sticks, which is a good option if you can find a pair in good condition.

The Elements of An Early War Confederate Impression

Reenacting an early war battle can be a very interesting experience. It can be very different from every other period in the war because the uniforms were so much different. Early on in the Civil War, units on both sides experimented with flashy dress and impressive equipment. Little importance was placed on practicality because people only believed that the war would last for a few months. Many new ideas about millitary uniforms sprung up in that period (1861-1862). Many of them were abandoned for various reasons.

Confederates in all theatres of the war came to battle in 1861 in a bizarre array of uniforms. Some millitias wore civilian clothes. Some wore elaborate uniforms with tailed coats and shakos. Some regular units issued frock coats to all of their men. Others wore battle shirts. Some were issued canvas "havelocks" that went on top of the kepi to act as a sun shade. Others were issued gaiters to protect against mud.

Two Trans-Mississippi men in battle shirts. Image courtesy of Lazy Jacks Mess.

Battle Shirts are overshirts that were worn in all theatres of the war by Confederate troops. They were made of wool or flannel with tape around the collar, front placket, and cuffs. Often, battle shirts were worn as a replacement for regular jackets or coats. Many battle shirts were made of a checked or plaid material. Others were solid colors like gray or blue. There are several examples of battle shirts that were made to look like shell jackets. They were solid gray with red or blue trim on the cuffs and collar and brass coin buttons on the placket. Most overshirts were worn tucked in with no suspenders. A belt was generally worn around the waistband of the trowsers so that accoutrements could be carried.

Fireman's shirts were also seen occasionally early on in the war. Much like battle shirts, fireman's shirts were a type of overshirt made of wool, flannel, or heavy cotton. They had a large plastron on the front that buttoned on. Most of them were red with dark blue trim around the edges, but some did not have any trim. Fireman's shirts were not nearly as common as battle shirts but they were worn by several Texas regiments in ANV as well as by assorted individuals in ANV and the Army of Tennessee.

The first Richmond Depot shell jackets in the Army of Northern Virginia were not issued until mid 1862. These are known as Type 1 jackets and they are identifiable by their trim on the epaulettes and collar. Type 1 shell jackets were not issued widely and the Richmond Depot jacket did not become "common" until the Type 2 jacket was issued.

However, shell jackets did exist in the Army of Northern Virginia before 1862. The commutation system had been set up early on in the war to try and relieve some of the pressure from the government of supplying all of its troops. That meant that many of the jackets going to ANV troops were provided by women on the homefront or soldiers' aid societies. These were called commutation jackets. Most of them were without trim. They were made of a simple pattern and they bore wooden buttons on the front.

Frock coats are another good alternative for an early war impression. Frocks were worn in all theatres of the war. Some were made at home by wives and sweethearts and others were issued by one's respective regiment. This lead to widely varying degrees of quality with frocks. Many of the early war militias in the Army of Northern Virginia wore elaborate frocks with tape and cuff buttons. One unit, the Warrenton Rifles wore prewar regulation tail coats with birdcage trim.
In Louisiana in 1861, the government told the state to furnish its own uniforms for its troops. Unable to find a contractor that was willing to be burdened with the hefty task, the state turned to the prisons to make uniforms for them. A very distinctive style of jean wool frock coat was manufactured there.
The type of frock that you wear all depends on your unit and your impression. Do some research of your own on this one.

In the fall of 1862, the Richmond Depot began issuing trowsers. Before that, most trowsers in the Army of Northern Virginia were either distributed through the commutation system or by the individual units. In the western theatre, almost none of the trowsers were issued by the government. The use of civilian trowsers can be documented in all theatres of the war.

On page 93 of the Confederate Echoes of Glory, there is an excellent collection of early war field signs, secession cockades, and a great picture of an original battle shirt. Field signs were an attempted system of wing badges and cap bands that was tried out by the Confederate army in order to give a unified appearance to their conglomeration of odd uniforms. It failed because it was used so inconsistently.
Also, some soldiers early on in the war wore secession cockades on their hats and jackets to show support for their respective state.

As for gaiters, don't wear them unless your unit tells you to. Sutlers sell way too many of those things and they were so commonly abandoned before the first battle. Don't be lured in by the myth that gaiters are a must for an early war impression.

Some new patterns of canteens and knapsacks emerged in 1861-1862. There were several different designs of "filter canteens" that were sold to new recruits by sutlers and merchants. They supposedly filtered the water held inside but they proved to only filter out dirt and grit rather than bacteria. Soldiers who carried filter canteens still got just as sick from bad water as soldiers who didn't.
Most knapsacks were issued by individual units. Many of them chose to issue hard box knapsacks early on in the war because they were durable.

Remember, in the very first battles, people dressed up to go and fight. There is tons of surviving evidence that cravats were worn commonly in the early months of the Civil War. People had no idea of the coming struggle.

Behaving Like a Kid of the 1860's

One of the biggest problems now with kids in Civil War reenacting is that kids just don't act like they used to. Many adults don't exhibit the proper level of manners for the period, but the problem is especially bad in kids. In that period, the expectations for kids and teenagers were so much higher.

Image courtesy of HarpWeek

The first thing to do is work on your manners altogether. There is existing evidence that table manners were not used by soldiers out in the field (no tables), but if you portray a civillian, you might want to polish up on those. Most of it is just common stuff. Say "please" and "thank you". If you are in polite company remember to use "Good Morning", "Good Afternoon", and "Good Evening" as your salutations. I have seen far too many ladies in nice authentic ball gowns greeting men with a rowdy "How Y'all Doin?". Of course, "How Y'all Doin" is fine for a lower-class white or slave impression.

Girls, one thing you have to remember is to talk quietly when adults are present. Don't yell like you normally would. Speek slowly and softly. It sounds more ladylike and more southern.

Both boys and girls should call all superiors by "Sir" and "Mam", especially if your impression is millitary. That was standard practice in the 1860's. Never argue with an adult openly, especially not with one of your parents. Also, if an adult tells you to do something, do it. I know that these rules seem harsh now but that was how things were in the 1860's.

Children had very little say in things until they were at least 13 or 14. Before you reached that point in your life, you would have been told to hold your tongue if you tried to be outspoken about a matter that adults were discussing.

One big thing that you need to remember is to try and get all modern slang out of your vocabulary while you are at an event. Find a period euphamism to use. "Darn" is not authentic. Try to say "dang", "draft", or "blame". Don't use the word "Dude" unless you are referring to a well dressed gentleman (i.e. "That man is really duded up.") Don't use modern expressions like "cool", "awesome", "tight", etc. Try to say "bully".

Remember that some common words in your speech would have been considered rude in polite company.
These are some words not to say and the period euphamisms for them:
Leg- limb
Pants- Trowsers, Nether-Garments, Sit-Down-Upons
Bull- Gentleman Cow, Seed Ox

Remember that kids acted differently around other kids than how they acted with adults. You don't have to lower your voice around your friends and you can arge and do all of that without being considered rude.