Richmond Depot Clothing – Volume II

Characteristics and Anomalies:
More Jackets, Pants, Drawers, and Shirts

By Richard M. Milstead
©2021 All Rights Reserved

Introduction

This presentation is a follow- up to Richmond Depot Jackets – Characteristics, Anomalies, and Myths (2018). It continues the story of the Richmond Clothing Bureau (RCB) and the products it made. I have chosen the designation of “Volume II” not only because this as continuation of the earlier work, but to convey to first-time reader that the two are interrelated and many subjects addressed in the first presentation (aka “Volume I”) are relevant to the second presentation but covered in less depth, if at all, in this “Volume”. It is again prepared as a slide presentation with notes. Much the same format and stylistic approach is used although some differences result due to examples studied and the progression of the narrative.

This volume is partially motivated by my desire to “catch up,” presenting examples studied since the first presentation was created or that were outside the focus (i.e., Richmond Depot jackets) of the first Volume. Volume II expands the scope to more completely address several different garment types made by the RCB and issued to men in the field. With the broader picture, unfortunately, comes a significant reduction in the number of examples available for study and analysis. One of the benefits I enjoyed in the earlier work was the amazing groundwork by Les Jensen in his original 1989 manuscript on Confederate Government Quartermaster jackets, especially his discussion of RD jackets and their characteristics based upon his extensive study of surviving examples. Simply the sheer number of surviving RD jackets provided an extensive basis for my original analysis. Far fewer examples of other RCB products have survived for study or are recognized as such.

The new reader approaching the second volume may ask what insights were learned from Volume I and what “new” things are addressed in Volume II? On the first, some attempt was made at the end of part 3 of the earlier presentation to summarize my thoughts and I invite the viewer to look there for a more expansive answer. Broadly speaking, however, the high level of conformity in the pattern and implementation of the jackets was notable as was the almost universal degree of variability in construction details. The term “seamstress choice” was often invoked to explain such variability. It was speculated that perhaps even the RCB patterns may have enabled differences in construction methods by the assemblers. A related conclusion was that viewing jackets made at the RCB from the perspective of 20th or 21st Century readymade clothing standards is misleading due principally to the process of their manufacture. Simply put, the small “anomalies” from one example to another were the result of the process (hand work by different individuals) under which they were made.

In terms of what is “new,” Volume II will attempt to pursue two different pathways. Part 1 will return RD jackets, looking at some I have personally inspected since Volume 1 was completed. Parts 2 and 3 will explore other garment types produced by the RCB: pants(1), drawers, and shirts. Part 2 will concentrate on RCB made pants (or closely related ones) and Part 3 will explore the characteristics of drawers and a shirt strongly linked to the RCB. With such limited sample sets, definitive conclusions my not be possible but, it is hoped, a general sense for their pattern and materials used can be gleaned.

(1) The term “pants” is used more or less universally in the pictures and text in this presentation rather than “trousers,” for the simple reason that the term “pants” is what Confederate Assistant Quartermasters (AQMs) called them and was the most common name used by “common soldiers.” Technically “trowsers” (period spelling) and “pantaloons” (pants) in the 19th Century were different garment types for the legs and lower body. Neither Confederate AQMs nor the troops adhered to this stylistic nuisance, however.

Acknowledgements

I would like to recognize and sincerely thank the many individuals who have assisted me in the research and preparation of this volume. Ross Kimmel my good friend for over 55 years and a kindred spirit in the study of Confederate “cloth,” has freely provided information, photographs, and knowledge across multiple dimensions of this project as well as for many of my other research pursuits. His early research into Maryland Confederate uniforms uncovered many of the artifacts that are the core of this work. Likewise, a recent acquaintance, Michael D. Kramer noted collector and devotee of Confederate artifacts has graciously opened his collection for my studies and provided encouragement for my research. Fred Adolphus, fellow researcher and author allowed me to use a number of excellent photographs from his web site and supplied information from his own extensive research.

I also wish to thank the professional staff members at the public museums who have allowed me access to their collections : Robert Hancock (American Civil War Museum, Richmond VA), Gordon Jones and Erica Hague (Atlanta History Center Museum, Atlanta GA), Greg Goodell (NPS Collection Gettysburg National Military Park), Jennifer Lock Jones and Patri O’Gan (National Museum Of American History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.), Carla Smith (Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, Springfield IL), Chelsea Grayburn, (South Carolina Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum, Columbia, SC), Carley Elder and Tim Talbott (Pamplin Historical Park and the National Museum of the Civil War Soldier, Petersburg VA), and Allison M. Tolman (Maryland Center for History and Culture, Baltimore Maryland). Finally, my thanks to private collector, Allan Wandling, Midwest Civil War Relics, who allowed me to photograph items from his collection.

I would also like to acknowledge members of the Liberty Rifles without whose support and encouragement this work would not have been possible, Craig Schneider, Michael Clark, and Paul Boccadoro.

A Wider view of the Richmond Clothing Bureau (RCB)

The Richmond Clothing Bureau (RCB) produced different types of enlisted men’s clothing for issue to troops in Virginia

  • Two separate parts of the Quartermaster manufacturing operation were established in Richmond in 1861

    • Enlisted men’s clothing

      Shoes

  • The clothing manufactory located on Cary Street employed up to 4000 local pieceworkers who principally made*:

    • Jackets

    • Pants (trousers)

    • Shirts.

    • Drawers

    • Caps

  • As described in Volume I, the clothing production model was based upon that of pre-war Schuylkill Arsenal

    • Fabric, trimmings, and notions were obtained by the Government

    • Dedicated cutters and trimmers prepared “kits” that included the pattern piece parts, thread, and other notions

    • Pieceworkers (usually local seamstresses) assembled the garments and, after inspection, received compensation for their work

  • The shoe manufactory was established on 22nd Street in Richmond in September 1861 under Steven Putney

    • Over 200 “detailed men” made shoes and boots for the QM Department producing 600 pairs per day

  • Key “takeaways” on RCB production from Volume I

In Volume I, the Richmond Clothing Bureau’s clothing manufacturing operation which is critical to the story of its garments was described. Stepping back to a wider view, the RCB really had two separate manufacturing divisions, one for clothing and one for shoes. Also, within the Richmond Quartermaster operation were the production of tentage, camp, and garrison equipage, raw materials procurement, supplies warehousing in support of manufacturing, and a finished goods “depot” warehouse used for fulfilling requisitions from various field commands. The finished goods depot and tentage, camp, and garrison equipage production was managed by one individual, Major William Bentley while the RCB raw materials procurement, supplies warehousing, and the manufacturing operations supervised first by Major Richard Waller and later by Major William Ferguson. Both reported to Lt. Colonel A.F. Cone who, in turn, reported directly to the Quartermaster General.

The clothing manufactory, located on Cary St., was responsible for production of army uniform jackets and pants, drawers, shirts, and caps. The general production mechanism, as was described in the first volume, was that the RCB contracted for supplies including textiles and notions (buttons, thread, etc.) required for making the clothing, cut out and packaged “kits” which included the items needed to make the garments, and these were distributed to local piece workers (seamstresses) in the community for assembly. Once completed the finished garments were returned to the RCB for inspection and the workers paid.

It is unclear if the caps were made in the same fashion or the RCB outsourced assembly to a firm in the Richmond area. Prior to March of 1862 the firm of Ellett & Weisinger in Richmond provided finished caps for the Richmond Quartermasters. By April 1863, Waller was forecasting RCB production of 60,000 caps in the following year and procuring cap bills in bulk to meet this goal. From surviving examples, it does appear that commonly patterned caps with provenance suggesting RCB production both in all gray and with red (artillery) trim are known.

Some limited numbers of overcoats may have been produced “in house” at the RCB early in the conflict. By 1862 priorities for basic uniforms and shortages of appropriate fabrics, appears to have stopped their manufacture during the rest of the war. There is evidence that RCB staff personnel (tailors and cutters) did special garments “off books” for well-placed civilian and military clients.

The shoe manufactory was established in Richmond on 22nd Street in September 1861. Civilian Steven Putney of the Richmond Shoe making firm of Putney and Putney, supervised the operation. In 1863 Putney was appointed to the rank of Captain in the Quartermaster Department. A description of the operation in the Richmond Examiner on 27 March 1864 described a large workshop where “two hundred detailed men are employed and…turn out daily about six hundred pairs of excellent shoes and brogans…” Furthermore, it noted that “[e]ach shoe is distinctly stamped with the letters ‘C.S.A.’ to prevent their unlawful sale as much as possible…” Such labeling provides modern historians with evidence of the manufacturing source not possible with RCB garments.

The most significant “takeaways” on the RCB clothing manufactory process from Volume I were the overall size of the operation and the degree to which products (jackets) were the same but, at the same time, subtly different. By 1864, four thousand pieceworkers (seamstresses) assembled between 10,000 and 15,000 “equivalent" suits of clothing per month (one jacket and one pair of pants) and a comparable number of shirts, drawers, and caps. The production model created something of a “cottage industry” through which different workers individually assembled standard piece parts causing some minor variations between examples. Product inspection also was probably more “functional” than “technical” guaranteeing serviceable clothing but passing through the anomalies.


Organization of Volume II

  • Part 1 - Richmond Depot Jackets – Seven new studies

  • Part 2 - Richmond Depot Pants

    • Comparative study of five pairs of enlisted men’s pants and one (possible) officer’s example

    • Derived characteristics of RCB made pants

    • Variations (anomalies) in the examples studied

    • Textiles and Buttons

  • Part 3 - Other Richmond Depot Soldier’s Clothing

    • RCB Undergarment production

      • Drawers

      • Two probable examples of enlisted men’s drawers made by the RCB

    • Characteristics of RCB made drawers

    • Shirts

      • Detailed study of one shirt strongly linked to RCB manufacture and its characteristics

    • Final Thoughts and Conclusions

      • The “Art” of the Seamstress – A Pictorial Survey

      • “Interpreting Richmond Depot Clothing from the Material Culture Paradigm”

Volume II is divided into three parts:

Part I will focus primarily on Richmond Depot (RD) jackets that I personally did not examine or photograph for the original study in 2018. The discussion will focus on seven examples, three which were part of the group studied in Volume 1 using other researchers’ photographs and four which were not. The presentation format for these seven is slightly different from what was done in Volume 1. They are not compared but rather analyzed separately with emphasis on the individual characteristics that make each noteworthy.

Part 2 will focus entirely on pants believed made by the RCB. It will involve six separate pairs of pants which have provenance, pattern, and characteristics that strongly relate them to each other and to the RCB. Five of the six are believed to be enlisted men’s pants made there and issued by Assistant Quartermasters (AQMs) in the field. One pair is very closely related but was probably “custom made” by a RCB worker for a private customer (an officer). Through the comparison of pattern, material, and construction of all six, common characteristics exhibited by this study group and their variations (anomalies) are discussed. Based upon this analysis, a set of distinguishing characteristics for pants produced by the RCB will be derived.

Part 3 is an in-depth dive into undergarments (shirts and drawers) made for and issued to Confederate soldiers in the Virginia theater of war. It is based upon an extremely limited set of surviving examples thought manufactured by the RCB. The case will be made, largely on similarities in provenance, textiles and buttons, construction, and assembly, that sufficient evidence exists to attribute them to the RCB. Particularly important in this conclusion is the presence of original Gibson contract buttons on some examples. Since the number of examples is so small, the examination of their details is extensive. It is hoped that such details may, in the future, assist researchers to use them to help classify other specimens which may come to light.

Part 3 will conclude with a pictorial survey of the handwork “Art” of the pieceworkers who assembled these garments. Finally, learnings taken from both the studies (Volume I and Volume II) will be considered more broadly in the context of a “material culture studies” paradigm. This will explore the collective “context” of these artifacts and how the industrial system and manufacturing processes employed to make them at the RCB reflected the Confederate war effort and the Richmond Community of that period.