There was a guy back in 1974 who got into re-enacting and competition
shooting in the N-SSA. His first unit outfitted themselves by taking men’s
blazers, turning back the lapel and adding trim to "convert" them to
artillery. Of course, he wanted to fit in so he copied the approach. When he
later put together an infantry impression, he blindly bought the same stuff
that every one in his unit was wearing. Over the years, this guy wasted a
lot of money on replicas his friends told him to buy. This was before he
ultimately began to research the items for himself, and judge for himself
what was the best product on the market was. That "guy" was me.

Our product line is the result of almost 20 years of research and in-depth
thought of what existed in the garment industry of the nineteenth century.
This catalogue not only presents the items that I am offering for sale, but
also presents the background information around them. The goal is to help
the customer make a more informed purchase. Of course, the best of all
resources are the original items themselves.

The scope of this product line is not limited to the traditional approach of
making high quality reproductions which required fastidious copies of
individual artifacts from museums and private collections. Although it is
essential to examine the original items before making a reproduction, I
believe that microscopic notes and details of only one item is far too
limiting. At the very least the individual item may reflect a production
flaw or anomaly, or details which may have been altered after issue. One
truly needs a larger sample group. Moreover, common sense would dictate that
an item made one at a time would look completely different from one of a
production line of 10,000.

Many reenactors take their cue from the military collectors. I have found
that military collectors want to over categorize the original items, whether
they are cap boxes or frock coats, into Type I or II, or the regulation
pattern. This thinking has spilled over into the living history field, which
has resulted in a very dogmatic definition of what an authentic replica
should look like. This approach overlooks the fact that the original items
were made by human hands. Despite the wide range of variation present on
originals; features such as fabric color, workmanship or garment pattern
design are given as absolutes. For fabric color, one needs only to examine
the "Woodhull Report", published in 1868 by the Office of the Surgeon
General to discover the Federal government’s dissatisfaction with the
inconsistencies of indigo dyeing. Prior to the Civil War, kersey was made of
sky blue "mixed" which was sky blue fleece mixed with white and black fleece
to achieve a uniform color. Essentially, the woolen fleece was dyed and the
color correspondingly controlled before the fabric was woven. Kersey
produced during the Civil War was dyed "in the piece" after it was woven.
Indigo dyed fabric comes out of the dyebath in a wet, natural/white state.
The fabric only takes color as it dries and oxidizes. One does not know what
the result will be until the fabric dries. Sky blue kersey, which came out
too dark after dyeing, was slated to be used for overcoats. Moreover, a
juxtaposition of the two enlisted frock coats in the collection of the
Chester County Historical Society, shows the tremendous contrast in color of
Federal issue garments. The wide range of production variations is well
documented, both in physical artifact and written word. Oddly enough, there
is a desire for a tighter definition of what is correct than could be
achieved during the Civil War.
 
It has long been established that there were variations between contractors,
which is to say, that the trousers made by J. T. Martin look slightly
different than that of Harkness or Deering. What I have found is that there
are inconsistencies within items produced by the same maker. For example,
there are three C. S. Storms cap boxes in the Wisconsin Veterans Museum
collection. I also possess an original produced by C. S. Storms. While there
are similarities, no two are identical in detail. Moreover, there are two
original shirts in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution, which are
of similar fabric and pattern. The contractor and inspector’s markings were
smeared and illegible, but their size, color and placement were almost
identical. It is my belief that they came from the same manufacturer.
Nonetheless, one of the shirts has a big box pleat in the back neck area and
the other is plain. This would lead one to believe that these cap boxes and
shirts were made by different workers in the same factory.

Moreover, a professor at the Fashion Institute of Technology, Carlo
Mongradi, worked at the Schuylkill Arsenal during World War II. At the time,
they were producing overcoats, and his job involved a machine which applied
a "stay" tape along the edge and simultaneously had a chopping knife which
trimmed the seam allowance off. He said, "I wasn’t paying attention to what
I was doing. Instead of stopping short of the edge to fold the fabric, I
trimmed it straight off. I guess that soldier just got a short overcoat."

The futility of categorizing authentic reproductions by small details of
original artifacts consistently overlooks one major fact. All of the items
had to pass Federal inspection, at which time their slight differences of
color pattern and workmanship would come into play. The logical conclusion
is that the inspectors wee not basing acceptability on the same details that
many living historians are. Authentic reenactors have to adopt the same mind
set as the original inspectors, and become sensitive to the range of
industrial quality available in the 1860’s before making judgements. Therein
lies the major difference between a reproduction and original item. None of
the reproductions have to pass Federal inspection. Without the professional,
industrial input available during the Civil War, authenticity of
reproductions is limited to a word of mouth endorsement. Given the hundreds
of manufacturers that received contracts during the Civil War and add the
umber of variations possible for each individual contractor, it is absurd to
be dogmatic. This does not in any way excuse the bad reproductions being
sold, as many of which bear no resemblance to their original counterparts.
What can be said is that there are features that, for instance, ever
original sack coat had, that got them the contract and subsequent payment.
The problem is that most bad reproductions don’t have these basic features
and the high quality reproductions get bogged down in the "right color blue"
or requiring the use of logwood dyed linen thread.
 

The Myth of Modern Mass Production Techniques

In reproductions, a gulf exists between the authentic reproductions and the
lower end, which is often, called "farby". In the past, what I have heard as
a defense for a lack of authenticity, is the utilization of "modern mass
production techniques". The implication is that it may not be the same
quality of an authentic counterpart, but it is still acceptable.

I attended the Fashion Institute of Technology in the industrial garment
pattern making division. What I am trained in, is an in fact modern mass
production technique. This reflects not on streamlined production time, but
also a quality level. The best example of modern production techniques is
your local department store, not sutler’s row. What most of these sutlers
are selling are amateur sewing techniques.

The first course of the first semester at the Fashion Institute was
tailoring I, taught by Professor Caffarelli. The first day, he was on the
bench, sitting, cross-legged "Indian style". Previous to this, I had seen
Civil War period woodcuts of tailors sitting in this manner. Professor
Caffarelli said that it was the way that he was taught, and he found it to
be the best way to sew. When you think about putting the lining in a frock
coat skirt, you really have to be able to drape it over a table to make it
fit properly.

His course, however, dealt with the fundamentals of stitching and tailoring
techniques. Shortly after enrolling at F.I.T., I encountered a copy of a
book published in 1830, titled The Tailor. This book was geared towards
teaching apprentices sewing techniques as well as giving them advice about
entering the trade. To my surprise, in the first semester at F.I.T., we were
taught all of the same techniques mentioned in the first section of the
book, except for two things. They were called stotting (pronounced stoating)
and rantering. In the 1830’s these techniques were used primarily to save
fabric, today it would cost more to do, than the price of the fabric itself.
Surprisingly, the trade has not drifted significantly from the 1830’s.

Many replica "mass produced" uniforms have thick, bulky unclipped seams,
with little if any pressing. By contrast, original Civil War uniforms and
modern ready to wear clothes both have small seam allowances. It is a
continuation of the same concept of the maximum utilization of material.
Factories, whether they operate in the 1860’s or the 1990’s, do not make
money by wasting materials.

Many of the replicas available have more of a theatrical air than that of a
reproduction of factory made men’s clothing. Theatrical clothing is
exaggerated to emphasize a feature so that it can be seen from a distance.
If one examines original factory made men’s shirts you will see the same
high level of workmanship still present in the modern day department store
men’s shirts. Whether you go to a modern department store or a museum, you
will not find shirts with one-inch wooden or mother of pearl buttons. Oddly
enough, if someone were to replace the buttons on his modern shirt with the
ones that you find on most reproductions, common sense would dictate that
they were the wrong size. Most reproductions are contrary to mass production
techniques, both today, as well as in the 1860’s.

"Mass produced" has often become synonymous with "farb" items in the
re-enactor’s lexicon. Ironically, the people who have been accepted as
making quality items are regarded as great artists, and produce on a one at
a time basis. While many of these people are meticulous, they seem to
overshoot the mark. They are trying to make marble statues when they
actually should be aluminum hubcaps. Moreover, the original items were NOT
produced one at a time during the Civil War. If one reads the appendix of
Francis A. Lord’s Civil War Collector’s Encyclopedia, you will encounter a
list of the hundreds of contractors that produced items for the Federal and
Confederate governments during the Civil War. You will also note that these
contracts were for 10,000 of a particular item, and the contract proposals
specify that they are to be delivered at the rate of 1,000 per week! In the
Philadelphia branch of the National Archives, I encountered correspondence
from a manufacturer to Colonel Crosman. This manufacturer stated that he had
enough agents who could comb the streets to "gather a force requisite to
produce 1,000 shelter tents per week, and even more if there is a full
moon." In America, the Civil War was the first major demand for mass
produced items. Essentially, if the "one at a time" level at which the
makers of high quality reproductions was correct, you would only need one
person working on the assembly line of an automobile factory.

As a point of comparison, while I was at the Fashion Institute of
Technology, one of my classmates worked in a coat factory in Brooklyn. On
average, they produce about 10,000 garments per week. Despite the fact the
working conditions in a garment factory during the Civil War could hardly
have been worse, they were able to produce, without electricity, ten percent
of the output of a modern factory. Still yet, one of my professors told me
that he was sent overseas to supervise production. He said the noisiest
factories in the world are in India, because they still use foot operated
treadle sewing machines. He said the clanking sound generated in a room with
over one hundred of these machines was deafening. Therefore, not only were
uniforms produced on a large scale during the Civil War, there are in fact
still factories operating in the world that use the same equipment as was
used during the Civil War.

In more recent military history, the Waffen-SS during World War II, selected
the center of European garment production as one of the areas of relocation
of the Jewish population. The largest of these areas of concentration would
grow into what was later called the Warsaw Ghetto. Clothing is still
mass-produced in this area.

When one speaks of a revolutionary concept, it is an idea that is moving
forward. Reproduction items can also be viewed in this manner. At one point
in re-enacting, simply having a wool uniform made one authentic. Much like
the hands of a clock, our knowledge moves forward, makes a full revolution
and returns to the point of origin. The point of origin of Civil War
uniforms was professional military mass production. Any accurate
reproduction must begin with a retracing and sensitivity of the garment
industry.

The Garment Industry

Directly related to the concept of mass production is the notion that
today’s garment industry is ultra modern. There is a misconception that the
construction of clothing has radically changed from the time of the Civil
War. Because of the erroneous acceptance of unauthentic reproductions being
produced utilizing supposedly "modern" techniques, there has followed a
misconception that the items produced during the Civil War are unique unto
themselves, and it has somehow become a lost art. With the recent phenomenon
of replica uniform "kits", professional sewing is not viewed as a profession
and trade by re-enactors. In re-enacting today, garment construction for the
most part being interpreted by people who are self-taught and have not
professional training. It is not so much the lack of training that has
impacted re-enacting, but rather the fact that they are perceived as being
experts and ironically having the last word on what is correct and what is
not. For one to be able to compare "modern" versus "Civil War" techniques,
the person must be expert or at least well versed in one. In order to be an
expert at Civil War patternmaking and sewing techniques, it is requisite
that the person lived and was trained in that time period. There is no
re-enactor living that can boast this. To that end, the only viable method
available is to compare original manuals and artifacts to what is now being
done in garment production. The history that emerges about the Civil War is
not "granny’s sewing circle" or "old time Amish craftsmen", but rather the
garment industry as a trade and the role of factory work in garment
production. The1860’s and the 1990’s are not two ends of the spectrum, which
are radically different; rather they are the stages of evolution. The
mechanization and electrical power of today’s factories have indeed brought
about changes. It still bears a strong family to the resemblance to the red
brick, three story buildings of the 1860’s.

Although there has never been anyone directly credited with its invention,
the most pivotal tool in the evolution of garment production was the
invention of the tape measure. Surprisingly, this occurred a mere forty
years prior to the Civil War. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth
century, strips of paper were taken for the various lengths required, and
correspondingly marked chest, neck, sleeve, etc. With numerical measurements
it was found that the human body could be measured in sets of proportions.
Ironically, to this day, there are tailors that do not use a tape measure,
but rather a piece of string, and use this for all of the measurements.

It was the invention of the tape measure that brought a degree of
sophistication to the drafting of patterns. In Claudia Kidwell’s Cutting a
Fashionable Fit, she states that the tape measure brought a difference in
"technique, (and) the substitution of scientific principles for the tailor’s
individual judgement or genius." Prior to, and in some cases up to the Civil
War, tailoring was self engineered trade, despite the fact that it remained
locked into the apprenticeship system. It was not until the 1880’s that a
relatively universal system was accepted by both the custom and ready-made
industries. This system was designed and written by Jno. Mitchell, and is
the text that is still used at the Fashion Institute of Technology. Prior to
this, and very much during the Civil War, tailors and cutters in the garment
trade were coming up with their own solution to the problem of cutting
clothes to fit the human body. This individualized approach is where the
various "depot styles" came from during the Civil War.

Professor Caffarelli of the Fashion Institute of Technology recalled a
system where the tailor simply traced around his hand to form the curves of
the pattern. This relied almost completely upon the experience and judgement
of the tailor. Professor Caffarelli told me about this system in 1993,
shortly thereafter I obtained a copy of a book The Art of Cutting written by
Edward Giles in 1896. The book is basically a timeline and comprehensive
study of patternmaking systems and manuals up to that time. He mentions
this, as well as another system which used horseshoes to form the curves.
Giles dates this system of making patterns, not from the time of the
American Civil War, but the late 18th century. Professor Caffarelli’s
training was not academic but, as they say in the trade, "on the bench." His
training was a continuation of the tradition where the apprentice inherited
the skills of the master, and in this case, it predated the Civil War.

Directly following the invention of the tape measure came a boom in
publishing systems for drafting patterns. Each one was claiming to be
different in approach and result. Some required special instruments to
measure the customer and special drafting implements. Others, which we have
in our collection, consisted of expanding brass templates which you enlarged
to the customer’s measurements. Many of these systems simply did not work.
Genio Scott’s The Cutter’s Guide, published in New York in 1857, sold a
series of paper rulers accompanying the manual. However, as he states, "the
paper having dampened to print, has since shrunk as you will perceived by
comparing it with your inched-tape…(but) in dampening it again with paste on
the bottom side, by pasting it to a dry piece of pasteboard will prevent it
from again shrinking." I could hardly imagine stretching wet paper to
exactly the right measurement to make the scales useful. Other pattern
making systems are so limiting that the tailor could only make one style of
jacket, pants and vest. This has remained the case to this day, and tailors
are known for only making the kind of clothes that they themselves like. To
that end, many of the uniforms produced at the Federal arsenals do not
display the caprices of fashion. In point of fact, the Federal uniforms more
closely reflect a style of garment almost ten years out of date.

The major reason for these systems was that the custom tailoring industry
rested upon exploiting the apprentice system. It was found by the 1820’s and
1830’s that one only needed to teach a few operations to the apprentices to
complete the garment. Consequently, the apprentice could not proficiently
complete a garment on his own. To that end, he or she would never become a
viable threat to the master tailor. Professor Joseph Caffarelli spent the
first two years of his apprenticeship simply threading needles. He still
remarked at the speed at which the master tailor could hand stitch, but it
did not make his first assignment less dreary.

The end result was that the apprentices became quite skilled in a small
number of operations, primarily hand-finishing and buttonhole making. Many
people have remarked about the exquisite hand-made buttonholes found on
original 19th century garments. The truth was there was an over-abundance of
hand-finishers, both male and female, and that skill became quite
commonplace. It was this approach that directly led to the factory system
known as section work.

What happened was many of these apprentices left their masters and found
that they could not find work without patternmaking skills. The publication
of the patternmaking systems and manuals was a direct a attempt to fill this
demand. Most of these systems were published privately, and usually by the
author. They were usually sold by mail, through trade publications or at
trade fairs and shows. Many patternmakings systems were directly plagiarized
from the manuals published in France and England, and still othes were
stolen from American sources. It is curious to note that some patterns had
distinctive features that were particular to that respective system. For
example, one of the most widely imported (and plagiarized), systems was
Louis Devere’s Handbook of Practical Cutting. His trouser patterns create a
distinctive, and rather unsightly, puffy "bump" in the seat. This feature is
distinctive to the trousers coming from Devere’s syste. It is of note that
there are a pair of trousers in the collection of the Museum of the
Confederacy which have this distinctive "bump."

The mass-produced, ready to wear garment industry is actually an outgrowth
of the custom tailoring trade. The industry grew from an individual customer
basis to a series of general sizes to fit average men. This trend towards
standardization was well established by the Civil War, but was relatively
crude by today’s standards. Although there were civilian¹ clothes made in a
wide range of sizes, the army’s solution was less than one-half dozen basic
sizes. Common sense would dictate that there were many more sizes and shapes
of men in the army.

Suiting Up for War

While the Federal Arsenals were found to adequately supply the armies in
time of peace, the exigencies of war forced the government to seek
contractors. While there were speculators who secured contracts for uniforms
and equipment, it was in point of fact the centers of garment production
that switched over to military contracts. In her master’s thesis, Mary L.
Davis Myers wrote, "New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Cincinnati produced
more than fifty percent of the total volume of ready-made (men’s) clothing
in 1860. New York would take the lead as the major clothing production
center in the 1860’s." (It should be noted that New York is still the
fashion capital of the world.) All of these locations later would become
major supply depots for the Federal Army during the Civil War.

As the garment industry grew from the custom tailoring trade, and the trade
itself was regionalized due to the patternmaking systems, it would stand to
reaso that these various depots, both North and South would have
correspondingly different styles of uniforms. It is my belief that the
clothing for instance produced for the New York depot closely resembled the
clothing being produced for the civilian market in that area.

Moreover, in terms of garment style, there is a radical difference between
Union and Confederate issue garments. As stated, the Federal uniforms
reflect a style and fit more akin to the late 1840’s and early 1850’s,
whereas the Confederate uniforms, especially those attributed to the
Richmond Depot, reflect a current 1860’s style. As many of the latest
civilian fashions were coming from England and France at that time, it is
very likely that this could be the lineage to the Confederate patternmaking
systems.

It should be stated that all of the work produced at a particular factory,
or arsenal in the case of military work, came under the direction of one
master tailor. This gentleman would be responsible for all of the patterns
and styles of garments produced at that location. Furthermore, it is very
likely that by researching the master tailors for the individual arsenal and
contractor, you may be able to find exactly what patternmaking system he
utilized to make the uniforms. While it may be moot if there is an extant
original, the manuals also contain corresponding trousers and overcoats. For
instance, this would enable one to find the Columbus Depot uniform in its
entirely as the tailor saw it. It is essentially making a reproduction from
the industrial standards of the day, and not solely on original artifacts.

A Tribute

The quality of the surviving uniforms do stand alone in terms of this
historical progression of mass-produced garments. The menwear industry
consisted largely of women, and it was as described in Ms. Davis-Myers
these, to be "a cheap abundant labor force, …and the massive number of women
needing work kept them the least paid…of the work force." Trade unions did
not come about in the garment industry in the United States until well after
the close of the Civil War. When a contract for uniforms could be obtained,
the female workers were barely paid subsistence wages. If there was no work,
they simply starved.

The traditional heroes of conflicts are the great generals who we remember
with statues on the battlefields of the war. Military historians and the
living history field have been altogether blind to the tremendous
contribution made by female garment workers during the Civil War. Although
they were paid little at the time of manufacture, it is almost poetic
justice that these surviving originals are bringing upwards of $40,000. At
today’s figures, this is equivalent to the price of a marble statue. It is
these surviving garments that are a lasting monument to their role in the
American Civil War.

Endnotes

¹In the nineteenth century, one most often encountered the word "citizen"
when referring to civilian life. This is actually a part of the Greco-Roman
revival, which was present in all forms of American culture at the time.
This obsession included the "Brutus" sweep haircut, as well as the great
marbled pillars of the southern plantations. In the United States, being the
only democracy in a world of monarchies, the title of citizen was a display
of patriotism and pride. Moreover, it was an indicator of gender and social
class. In the 1860’s, one had to own property to be eligible to vote.
Private Sam Watkins, of the First Tennessee, author of Company Aytch, wrote
about leaving for the front, that "At every town and station, the citizens
and ladies were waving their handkerchiefs and hoorahing for Jeff Davis and
the Southern Confederacy." Reenactors should begin to incorporate the word
"citizen" in their interpretation. (click on footnote to return to text)

(Back to Article Index)

 This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page