Richmond Depot Clothing – Volume II

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

By Richard M. Milstead
©2021 All Rights Reserved

Part 2: Richmond Depot Pants

Jump to:

• The Study

  • Reuben Taylor Pants

  • Henry Redwood Pants

  • George Wilson Pants

  • Lt. Thomas Tolson Pants

  • Henry Hollyday Pants

  • Lt. John Selden Pants

Pants thought to have been made by the RCB have been informally recognized for a number of years by Civil War material culture researchers, makers of period reproductions, and living history hobbyists. The early work done in pattern development by Charles R. Childs of County Cloth, Inc. is a solid example of this. Unfortunately, not a great deal of rigorous study has been done documenting original examples with provenance linking them to Virginia or the ANV. Fred Adolphus in his extensive studies of C.S. uniforms of the Lower South has identified, and categorized groups of trousers linked to production in states from Georgia to Louisiana. However, much opportunity remains to systematically vet possible RCB examples through detailed examination using factors like provenance, pattern, materials (textiles, buttons, etc.), and construction.

Several problems confront such studies for uniform pants. First, due to the relative rarity of enlisted men’s uniform pants when compared to uniform jackets only a limited number of examples still exist. As utilitarian garments which wore out quickly in the field, surviving pants that returned home with veterans often continued to be worn afterward and were, hence, less likely to be preserved as souvenirs. Second, uniform pants usually utilized relatively common period civilian patterns, so differences in versions produced by QM manufacturing operations and “civilian” examples have not been well understood or documented. Finally, little serious analysis has been attempted to systematically categorize possible characteristics of identified RCB manufactured pants based upon examples in public or private collections, discouraging rigorous comparisons.

Some attempt to do such an analysis will be the purpose of Part 2 of this presentation. It will focus only on Richmond Clothing Bureau products and is confined to examples I have personally inspected and photographed. As a disclaimer, the author is aware of other examples claimed to be Richmond Depot pants and still others which, based upon limited photographic evidence, appear quite similar to those analyzed in this presentation. Their evaluation, using the factors mentioned above (provenance, pattern, materials, and construction), would be speculative here because of insufficient information available to me at this time. As with the RD jackets, variations other than those seen among the pants considered here are possible, even likely, due to differences in construction details, i.e., “seamstress choice” anomalies, introduced by the assembler. Also, like jackets, the characteristics described as representative of “RCB made” pants may have changed over the production period.

Given the limited number of pants considered, this work is viewed, therefore, as but a first step. Future research will, it is hoped, extend this effort to systematically compare other surviving examples with provenance linking them to the RCB’s operational region (Virginia) and, in that way, identify those which can be attributed to it. However, it is believed that consistency in pattern, materials, and construction with the examples discussed in this study becomes a reasonable basis to identify pants made by the RCB during the war.

• Six examples believed produced by or linked to the Richmond Clothing Bureau are included

• Five are enlisted men’s pants issued within Virginia

• One pair worn by a Virginia officer in the Army of Northern Virginia

• Provenance links them to other surviving RCB made clothing

• All share pattern and construction similarities but exhibit variations (anomalies)

  • Textiles utilized are consistent with types documented to RCB production

  • Consistent construction philosophy but execution varies

  • Post- issue modifications also noted

• Study examples

  • Enlisted pants (in approximate chronological order of issue)

    • Taylor pants

    • Redwood pants

    • Wilson pants

    • Tolson pants

    • Hollyday pants

  • Officer pants

    • Lt. John Selden pants

  • Five are from public collections, one is privately owned

  • I have personally studied each example taking over 425 photographs and have obtained nearly 75 more from other researchers

Part 2 of this presentation will concentrate on five pairs of enlisted men’s pants believed to have been made by the RCB and one related pair owned by an officer but possibly made through some special arrangement with that clothing bureau. All have histories that link them to the Army of Northern Virginia or other Confederate forces in Virginia and four of the five enlisted men’s examples are closely associated with other RCB manufactured garments descended from the original owner. They all share consistent pattern, textile, and construction details, characteristics which taken together suggest they were made by a common source. They also show variability in execution details or “anomalies” that reflect assembly by different pieceworkers consistent with the RCB production model. Some also have post issue modifications. Most are believed of late war origin.

The five enlisted men’s examples (in rough chronological order) are the Reuben Taylor pants in the Atlanta History Center collection, the Henry Redwood pants in the American Civil War Museum collection in Richmond VA, the George Wilson pants in the National Museum of American History collection, Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C., the Lt. Thomas Tolson pants in the Maryland Center for History and Culture (formerly the Maryland Historical Society) collection, and the Henry Hollyday pants in the collection of Michael D. Kramer. The Lt. John Selden pants, also in the ACWM collection, are included because, while probably privately made, their characteristics very closely relate to the others and could suggest production by workers at or linked to the RCB.

I have personally inspected and photographed each having taken over 425 high resolution photographs. In addition, several other researchers have allowed my use of photographs they have taken of these artifacts for my analysis.

One further note, some of the examples presented display creases in the legs (e.g. the Wilson and Tolson pants.) The mid-19th century style was that trousers were not creased. Their presence is the result due to more modern mishandling, particularly from improper storage. It can be said with fair certainty that these were not present in the ‘as manufactured’ pants and would not have been introduced in the period.

These pants, and a uniform jacket of unknown origin were taken as souvenirs by First Sergeant Reuben B. Taylor of Company E 14th West Virginia Infantry from a Confederate warehouse in Dublin, Virginia at the time of its destruction on 9 May 1864 during Brigadier General George Crook’s raid into the upper Shenandoah Valley during May and June 1864. Both garments display extensive “wear and tear”, suggesting that they were possibly not from unissued stock, but rather discarded soldier’s clothing collected at the Dublin warehouse for an unknown reason. Since their post war history is unclear, it is also possible they were worn (out) by Taylor after the war. The two garments’ modern history is equally cloudy. They were acquired by the AHC from a private collector who had obtained them from an “unnamed” Ohio Historical Society or Museum. They came with the above verbal history, possibly derived from the family. Significant professional conservation was done to both.

The pants still retain some of their original Gibson wooden buttons. Of the seven pant size Gibson buttons on them when manufactured, four have survived, supplemented by three later (20th Century?) wooden replacements. Of the six shirt size Gibson buttons originally present, only the two for the pocket flaps remain. All buttons were reattached in later non-period thread, possibly as part of the conservation activities, so these may have been added at the same time.

The Taylor pants were made from heavy “cassimere” weave wool-on-cotton fabric which displays the distinctive diagonal twill line created by the “2 over 2” weaving pattern used in its manufacture. The warp is undyed cotton and the weft natural, cream-colored wool. This is “drab cassimere”, frequently referenced in delivery invoices to the RCB by Manchester Cotton and Wool Manufacturing Company and other Virginia mills. The linings, facings, and pocket bags are made of common undyed cotton osnaburg used in RD jacket linings.

At some point, the rear adjustment belt was removed but close inspection of the waistband lining shows evidence of the original stitching. One significant pattern/construction “anomaly” is noted. As will be discussed in the later in this presentation, these pants are one of two pairs analyzed in this study which have two-piece pocket bags.

The presence of Gibson contract pant (medium) and shirt (small) sized buttons is a strong indicator of RCB manufacture which, in turn, suggests the pants’ pattern and construction should be characteristic of other pants made by that operation. As stated, the use of “drab cassimere” combined with undyed cotton osnaburg used in the facings and linings also is consistent with fabrics known to have been utilized at the RCB. Recent research has determined that the Gibson pant and shirt size buttons were first delivered to the RCB in the middle of March 1863. Given the date of the Dublin raid they probably could not have been made much later than the beginning of the second Quarter of 1864 even if unissued when Taylor took them. These two facts suggest a limited period for their production from not earlier than March 1863 to March/April 1864 but possibly much earlier.

Henry Redwood served in Company B of the 3rd Virginia Infantry, Local Defense Regiment. This regiment was formed by Confederate authorities in Richmond from “detailed men”, that is, males in the Richmond area working at jobs exempted by the Conscription Act, from those over 45, and from government office workers in the city. Company B was made up of employees of the Post Office Department and City Post Office. This command was organized in response to General Order No. 86 issued on 22 June 1863. The Local Defense troops were not in continuous service but were only called out from their normal jobs by order of the President. The exact date Henry Redwood joined is not stated in his service records, but he appears on a muster roll dated 27 August 1864 with the notation that he had “joined since last muster”. The regiment evacuated Richmond on 3 April 1865 with Ewell’s Department of Richmond troops and most members were captured three days later at Saylor’s Creek. No record exists of Redwood’s parole or that he signed an Oath of Allegiance, so it is unclear whether he took part in the evacuation. The American Civil War Museum’s collection also includes Redwood’s uniform jacket (RD type III) which is one of the study group discussed in Volume I.

The Redwood pants are made of light or “sky” blue English woolen kersey fabric. Sky blue was specified in the Confederate Army’s regulations for enlisted men’s pants. The Confederate QM purchasing agents were directed to contract for both blue-gray and light blue EAC in large quantities on several occasions in late 1862 and in 1863. Only in late 1864 did Quartermaster General Alexander Lawton instruct Major James B. Ferguson, his purchasing agent in England, to stop purchasing sky blue in lieu of blue-gray which could be used for both jackets and pants, stating that the “the grey makes up to more advantage”. Nevertheless, from RCB delivery records (Shipping Book, Richmond Clothing Depot, 1863‑1865, National Archives and Records Administration, Record Group 109, Chapter V, Vol. 218) light blue EAC continued to be received by the RCB in significant quantity into the 1st Quarter of 1865. It is conservatively estimated that during the second half of 1864 between 15% and 25% of the trousers produced by the RCB were made of “sky” blue English cloth.

The facings, linings, and pocket bags are of undyed cotton osnaburg, closely matching that used in the Taylor pants. All surviving original buttons are black (japanned) stamped metal buttons probably of English manufacture and run through the Blockade. Deliveries of large quantities of such buttons is also documented in the Shipping Book, Richmond Clothing Depot, 1863‑1865.

George Wilson served in the 1st Maryland Light Artillery (Dement’s Battery) in the Army of Northern Virginia. He enlisted on 12 October 1862, served through the war, and was paroled between 11 and 21 April 1865 at Farmville, Virginia, following surrender of Lee’s army at Appomattox. His garments in the Smithsonian collection include a RD type III jacket made of blue-gray English Army cloth (discussed in Volume I), these pants also made of blue-gray English fabric and a blue-gray wool-on-cotton flannel shirt, possibly English or made privately from imported fabric. It is likely he was wearing this clothing at his capture and wore it back home. Wilson probably received the jacket and trousers in the last six months of the war given their condition. His service records indicate that he was issued clothing on 21 and 22 July 1864, shortly after being released from hospital in Richmond, and again on 4 October 1864.

Wilson’s pants closely mimic the Redwood and Taylor examples. The pattern is virtually identical. The waistband was crudely sewn together at some point to close the split in back present as manufactured and the rear adjustment belt removed, as with the Taylor pants, possibly at the same time. Evidence of its original presence can be detected in the osnaburg lining or “yoke” inside the back. The wool fabric was woven from blue- gray yarn like other EAC imported through the Blockade but is plain (“tabby”) weave instead of twill weave in kersey. This fabric is very similar to, if not the same as, the EAC used in the Milhouse jacket discussed in Part 1 of this presentation. It is of medium weight and exhibits staining which, along with the surface wear, indicates use in active service. The material used for linings, facings, and the pocket bags is the typical undyed cotton osnaburg used by the RCB. Several original black stamped metal buttons still are with the pants.

The pants have been professionally conserved by the Smithsonian staff at some time in their history.

Thomas Tolson enlisted as a private in Company C, 2nd Maryland Infantry. On 24 November of 1862, he was promoted to fill a 2nd lieutenant vacancy in Company C. In June 1864, Tolson was wounded in action at Cold Harbor. On 31 December 1864, after returning to duty following a five-month recuperation from his wounds, he, as acting commander of Company C, administered a large company clothing issue which included jackets and pants. Tolson served with the 2nd Maryland until captured at Hatcher’s Run, 2 April 1865. Following capture, he was sent to the prisoner of war camp at Johnson’s Island, Ohio. Thomas Tolson took the Oath of Allegiance and was released on 20 June 1865 in Washington D.C. An entry in Tolson’s diary on 10 February 1865 states: “Pay $100 to have my jacket and pants [Author’s note: possibly obtained at the company clothing issue] fixed in Petersburg. The weather wet and very cold.” Tolson’s RD type III jacket and pants are now in the Maryland Center for History and Culture collection.

Tolson’s pants are made of heavy blue-gray, kersey weave EAC. Like the other examples, the linings, facings, and pocket bags are undyed cotton osnaburg. They also retain the several common English black metal buttons probably original to their issue. Modifications were made at some point following their original production. The button closure at the waist band was altered to hide the buttonhole originally centered in the waistband, remove the corresponding waistband button, and add two hidden buttons and corresponding buttonholes obscuring the method of closure when the pants were being worn. In addition, linings were added inside the front of each leg at the bottom hem using osnaburg cotton fabric similar to that used elsewhere in the pants. These possibly prevented wear at the hems as well as maintained the proper appearance when being worn (i.e., from a style perspective). Standard issue enlisted trousers did not have such embellishments. These linings were neatly and professionally added after manufacture by a competent tailor or seamstress using contemporaneous materials. Considering that Tolson’s RD type III jacket also was altered (discussed in Volume I), this work probably is what was referred to in Tolson’s diary entry.

Henry Hollyday enlisted in Company A of the 1st Maryland Battalion (subsequently designated the 2nd Maryland Infantry) on 15 September 1862. He served throughout the war, paroled on 9 April 1865 following surrender of Lee’s Army at Appomattox. Hollyday is believed have received the pants as part of a special clothing issue arranged by Maryland Confederate sympathizers in March 1865. At that time, he supposedly got these pants together with a jacket (likely made in NC), a shirt, and a pair of drawers. The shirt and drawers are also believed to be of RCB manufacture and will be discussed in Part 3 of this presentation. The entire ensemble now is in the Michael D. Kramer Collection.

Like the Taylor example, these pants are made of wool-on-cotton cassimere. They are virtually identical to the Taylor pants in pattern, construction and the fabric used is quite similar in weave, only differing in color being light gray wool over brown dyed cotton warp. The buttons on them are imported English black metal buttons like the Redwood, Wilson, and Tolson examples, other late war issue pants.

The patch on the right knee is interesting. It was very meticulously applied. There is also a piecing at the hem of the left leg. They both appear to have been done using cassimere fabric closely matching the fabric used in the remainder of the pants. Could this have been “factory done?” This anomaly will be discussed later in the presentation.

Lt. John Selden was born in Washington, D. C. A student at the University of Virginia, in 1861 he enlisted as a private in the Albemarle Light Artillery. The enlistment was for one year and following his discharge, on October 21, 1862 he re -enlisted, again as a private, in Company K of the 1st Virginia Artillery (Richmond Howitzers - 2nd Co.). Less than three months later, on February 1, 1863 he was appointed 1st Lt. and Ordnance Officer of the 1st Virginia Artillery, later redesignated the 1st Battalion Virginia Artillery (Hardaway's). Selden continued to serve as Ordinance officer with this unit until March 27, 1865 when he was reassigned to Cutshaw's Battalion, Virginia Artillery in the same role. Selden’s pants are part of an ensemble of garments, including a frock coat, these pants and a matching vest, an English shirt, and a pair of drawers (discussed in Part 3) currently in the American Civil War Museum collection in Richmond VA.

Selden’s pants were most likely made privately. The workmanship, in general, was executed with a very skillful “hand” more consistent with private tailoring than typically encountered in regular issue enlisted men’s garments made at the RCB. They are made of sky blue EAC that closely matches the fabric in the Henry Redwood pants and are lined in the same undyed cotton osnaburg found in the other examples with the slight difference that the back lining (yoke) is cut more generously than typical enlisted pants. Red wool piping was added as trim in the outer leg seam at manufacture and brace (suspender) buttons never appear to have been present. In pattern and construction Selden’s pants conform closely to the RCB made issue examples above except that the Selden pants exhibit two-piece pocket bag pattern/construction only seen in the Taylor example. Selden’s vest is made from the same sky blue EAC has similar piping added as trim suggesting it may have been made for Selden at the same time.

No record exists of who made Selden’s pants or even how he obtained them. Officers were supposed to provide their own clothing. Ordinance officers, although assigned to “line organizations,” technically reported to the Ordinance Department. Throughout the second half of the war, cloth for officer’s clothing was in short supply. Records indicate that Ordinance officers were allowed purchase uniform cloth as well as items like flannel shirts and overcoats at government prices from stocks maintained by the Ordinance Department itself. In February 1864 Colonel Josiah Gorgas, head of the Ordinance Department, directed that they should be allowed to obtain sufficient yards of cloth specifically to have “one pair of pantaloons and a vest” made up. While it cannot be said with certainty, it is speculated the material for Lt. Selden’s pants and matching vest may have come from these stores.

Assigned to the Army of Northern Virginia, Selden would have had ready access to such cloth supplies in Richmond. Given his status and past connections with notable units like the Richmond Howitzers, he may also have been able to arrange for one of the government tailors at the RCB to make up this clothing. This type of “off books” work was apparently common for “connected” members of the government. In 1864, J. B. Jones, a clerk in the War Department, relates that “Major Ferguson [officer in charge of the RCB] having got permission of the Quartermaster General to sell me a suit of cloth [so] …I got four yards, enough for a coat, pants, and vest …and I have the promise of the government tailor to make it up.” (A Rebel War Clerk’s Diary, J.B. Jones Edited by James L. Robertson Jr.) Again, speculation, but such arrangements were one way in which employees at the RCB made extra money. The closely shared characteristics of pattern, fabric. and construction methodology between this example and the others, at the very least, point to some close relationship between them.

“Pants is pants.”

Probably if someone could ask a private in Lee’s army what the pattern or construction differences were in the various “pantaloons” issued to him, that would have likely been the answer. As was noted in the introduction to Volume II, the term “pants” was the name used by most southern “common soldiers” to refer to this garment. It is also what the Confederate Assistant Quartermasters (AQMs) called them on the administrative forms (e.g., “Special Requisition No. 40”) that they filled out in the field to obtain them or record their issue to soldiers. Technically, “trowsers” (period spelling) and “pantaloons” (pants) were different garment types in the 19th Century and, to be precise, what was issued to the army were trousers. Federal army quartermasters used the term “trowsers” as did the Confederate Army Regulations in the section covering “Uniform and Dress for the Army,” but this distinction was apparently moot to most of those in Confederate service.

Civilian men’s “pants” in the 19th Century actually changed very little between the 1830’s and 1900 with the main differences being in such aspects as the width of the leg at the knee and bottom, the “rise” (distance from the crotch to the top of the waistband), and the treatment at the shoe (stopping at the shoe, breaking over the shoe, etc.). These elements varied based upon the prevailing style in different eras, affecting how they looked but had little effect on the basic pattern implementation or construction. The button “fly” appeared around 1830 replacing the “broad fall” for men’s pants as the predominant style although in more remote or traditional areas the transition took longer. Pockets were implemented in different ways and at the bottom of the leg (“cuff”) they were shortened or lengthened, sometimes shaped, and even reinforced for more stylishly shaping around the shoe.

Given uniformity in the basic pattern concept, analysis of original examples for comparison purposes relies upon scrutiny of small details of pattern design and related elements of the construction strategy and implementation. The study of the jackets made at the RCB in Volume I essentially followed a similar path. Much of the uniformity in RD jackets arises from the consistent way in which the very traditional six-panel body and two-piece sleeve patterns were executed in the RCB’s specific design implementation. Since the pattern was directly manifest in the pieces cut by the “cutters” and provided to the “assemblers,” this conformity in the RCB pattern and how its parts were designed to be assembled is an essential starting point for attribution of any example as being from their operation. The same is true with the pants they made.

In this section, various areas will be compared across all six pairs of original pants discussed above. They will be scrutinized to, hopefully, illustrate the strong similarities that exist between them. The accumulation of these similarities is believed a significant rationale for their attribution as products of a common manufacturing operation. Following this discussion, a group of variations (anomalies) which also have been noted will be discussed in detail in a separate section. This is an organizational difference from Part I (jackets.) At times during this discussion about RD pant characteristics, such deferment will seem awkward but doing so will allow for a more comprehensive discussion of the strong commonalities that exist without unnecessarily sidetracking the thrust of the presentation.

This image of the Reuben Taylor pants shows major characteristics of the original examples in the study group viewed from the front. The so called “Mule’s ear” pocket is common to all and included a buttonhole allowing them to be fastened closed. All enlisted men’s examples have (or had) two suspender (brace) buttons on each side in the front. The fly is a four-button closure, and the waistband is closed with a single button. Significantly, from a pattern design perspective the legs are straight with the leg at the knee the same width as at the bottom or cuff. The bottom of the leg is finished by turning the end up inside of the leg and overcasting it down inside.

This group of images shows a comparison of the waist area in all six pairs of pants. The similarity in the pattern of each and the way they are constructed can be seen. Note that the waistbands do not significantly taper (front to back) nor do any of these examples have watch pockets. Both are common characteristics on some other period pants including many Federal pants from different contractors. The fact that the waistline rises along the waist band so that the back is higher rise than the front is typical of mid-19th Century men’s trousers.

The waistband buttonhole on the Tolson pants has been neatly closed (barely visible in picture) and one of the two added inside buttonholes is partially visible. As was discussed above, this work was part of the modifications Tolson had made documented in his diary and will be discussed later with “anomalies”. The waistband corner at the front end of the Tolson pants is also rounded. This is either part of the modifications he had made or possibly a “seamstress choice” anomaly, as this is not seen on any of the other examples.

The way the pockets were handled both from a pattern and a construction perspective is one of the most distinctive characteristics which these six examples all share. When taken as a whole, the pocket implementation, shown in the above image, is believed to be a signature feature of RD pants. So called “Mule’s ear” pockets, also referred to as French style pockets, are often found in 19th century men’s pants. They may be derived from the way pockets often were provided in Empire era “broad fall” trousers and pantaloons. Similar pockets, implemented differently, are seen occasionally on contract Federal enlisted men’s trousers but more frequently (in the author’s experience) on private purchase officers’ examples. However, they seem particularly prevalent on Confederate pants.

Several features make the RCB implementation distinctive. First, the handling of the inside and outside pocket facings while not necessarily unique is consistently done the same way in all six examples studied. Second, the shape of the “Mule’s ear” is squared, nearly a right angle, and the sides of the pocket flap (horizontal and vertical) are very nearly equal in length. In construction, the front inside facing (attached to the pocket bag) is sewn to the front of the pant leg (“right side to right side”), then turned “right sides” out, topstitched around the periphery, and a “bar tack” or stop stitching applied at where the pocket connects to the leg side for strength. The back inside facing (also attached to the pocket bag) continues the front waistline and is also secured at the pocket top with the bar tack.

Taken together these features are considered significant. Some pants with this type of pocket have rounded flap edge or much greater angle (e.g., 135 degree) for the flap. In some, one side or the other of the opening (but typically the top) is longer than the other side. These differences are important because they were determined from the original pattern used in cutting out the pants. The shape and size of the pocket facings are also pattern dependent where they attach to the pocket flap or waistband but some variation where they attach to the pocket bag is possible since those could have been cut from irregular scraps of fabric because that area would not typically be visible when the pants were being worn. Topstitching around the edge on other pants may also not terminate in the same way but including bar tacks or “stop” stitching, while possibly be a “seamstress choice” technique, was consistently handled this way in all of these examples.

Buttonholes for closing the pocket with buttons sewn to the back inside facing (some of the buttons have not survived) are found on all six examples in the study. Defining this as a characteristic may be a controversial to some researchers and makers. Of Confederate RD pants I have personally studied, a buttonhole was present on all. In other examples, for which I have seen limited photographic evidence and believe may be RCB made, only one was without these buttonholes. The problem with that example, in particular, is that lacking more photographs or other information, indicating additional characteristics I believe to be associated with RD pants (discussed later in this presentation) that could not be verified, leaving definite attribution an open question. One other consideration, buttons were clearly among the items supplied to the pieceworkers that assembled the “kits” or they would not be present on, at least, the five enlisted man’s examples. If the RCB supplied buttons for the pockets with the “kits”, it is assumed that they intended for them to be used. In other words, if pocket buttonholes are found on most identified examples, the lack of them becomes an “anomaly” to what should be considered the standard for all. All of this is speculation or, more precisely, a conclusion based upon a very small sample size. I hope that with future study of other examples the question can be clarified.

The pocket area for all six examples studied is seen above. The general conformity in design and construction is noted. The red piping on the out seam of the Selden pants is obscured by the pocket flap visually making the vertical side look shorter. It is essentially the same as the others.

The facing arrangement and construction on three of the examples are shown in the above images. The two facings were attached to the pocket bag inside with long (sometimes fairly coarse) running stitches along the “raw” edges creating a diagonal line visible inside the pants on the sides of the pocket bag. This construction can be seen well from the view inside the “Mule’s ear” of the George Wilson pants. The facings were handled in the same way on other the examples.

The characteristics of the fly area of RD pants are explained in this image showing the front view. In a sense, the pattern and construction elements of nearly all mid- 19th Century trousers are remarkably similar when viewed from the outside, so there isn’t much unique to see here. The “button fly” piece is added on the right leg panel to provide overlap necessary with the left side having the “buttonholes” to accommodate buttoning the pants. The four-button fly design is rather typical although some other design implementations may have more (5) or less (3) buttons. This was so standard that period trouser and pantaloon patterns in some fashion books do not even illustrate the button fly pattern piece as it was probably considered part of the facings or lining structure left to the individual tailor’s discretion. The left side is referred to as the “buttonhole fly” for the obvious reason that that side is where the buttonholes are. Some specific elements that characterize the way RD pants were constructed, but which are not necessarily unique to them, will be seen when the elements of the fly construction are viewed from the inside.

The fly area for each of the six examples is shown in these images.

The white bone “buttons” seen on the Taylor pants are referred to by some sources as “button reinforcements” or “corset buttons” by others. These thin bone discs made with two large, oversized holes were used in civilian clothing as reinforcements to the area where the buttons were sewn to a coat (plastic versions continue to be used today in some high-end clothing manufacture) and/or threaded onto tapes for securing ladies’ underclothing such as corsets and garters. They are not believed to be original to the pants (which also have original Gibson contract shirt and pants buttons) but were most probably added to replace missing buttons at some point when the pants were being conserved, perhaps to allow them to be displayed on a mannequin.

The right side of the fly on a pair of pants, the “button fly,” is shown in this image looking from the inside. The terminology is important because the pattern pieces related to this side are distinctly different from the “buttonhole fly” and the construction is different as well. From the inside, the button fly facing is visible. This piece covers the seam where the button fly is attached to the right leg panel. In RD pants this facing is made of undyed cotton osnaburg. In all the examples it is overcast to the button fly itself (applied), each being turned under first, so that the fly piece extends slightly (“stands proud”) from the facing which, therefore, will not be visible from the front. The facing is secured to the pant leg either by overcast stitching or with running stitches, “seamstress choice.” In either case, the facing is turned under to hide the raw edge. The button fly facing is covered by waistband lining when it is applied as can also be seen from the image.

The use of cotton osnaburg (or other undyed cotton) for the button fly facing is quite common in Confederate pants although occasionally patterned shirting was used. Other materials are seen In Federal or civilian examples. Cotton drilling and sometimes brown muslin or black “Silesia” is used in Union trousers. The rear edge was sometimes left raw in other Confederate pants instead of being turned under, leaving a frayed edge.

These images show the button fly area viewed from the inside on each of the study examples. The construction philosophy is the same for all. The only significant difference is the way the rear edge of the facing is secured to the pant leg. On two, the Tolson and Hollyday examples, the stitching is a simple running stitch while on the others the edge was overcast down. The facing has been turned under along that edge on all before it was stitched. On two, the Wilson and the Taylor examples the visible (dark) stitching was done as part of later conservation activity.

This image shows the typical inside construction on the left or “buttonhole fly” side on the studied examples. It is to this inside facing that buttonholes were added for facilitate fly closure. The inner buttonhole fly facing on RD pants and most other CS examples is cut from the pant fabric. This is not necessarily true in other military trousers. In particular, Federal trousers used either unbleached cotton drill or black “Silesia” or dark (brown) muslin (“polished cotton”). All the RD examples studied have two additional layers “sandwiched” between the innermost (visible) facing and the left pant leg. These were always made of cotton osnaburg as is used in other interior parts of the trousers. While not unique, this is certainly not the way this is handled in all other types of military trousers. In CS pants there is often only single layer of added fabric, usually the same as used in the linings and pocket bags, to provide backing for constructing buttonholes in the inner facing. In Federal trousers the layer next to the inner facing is usually cut from the trouser fabric and fabric layer next to the pant leg is out of drilling or “polished cotton.”

In the examples studied the inner buttonhole facing and other layers is secured at the rearward edge with a line of through stitching executed in a running stitch. This stitching was noted in the front view of the fly area. This again is typical of most period pants. The edge of all layers was left raw. This type of construction is seen in most other CS pants. Federal trousers are handled differently. While through stitching secures the inner layers to the pant front, the rear edge of the inner facing is turned under and overcast down to prevent fraying.

The front (forward) edge of the left fly was handled in different ways among the various RD pants studied and represents one of the major variations noted in the study group. Attributed to “seamstress choice,” this will be discussed in depth in the section on “Anomalies” later in the presentation.

The above images show the left (“buttonhole fly”) side and the inner facing on each of the examples. The raw edges at the rear of the facings can easily be seen in all except the Wilson pants. On those the inner facing was neatly sewn down, at some point, as part of professional conservation resulting in the lack of visible raw osnaburg edges on that pair. They were originally constructed in the same manner as the others.

The image in this slide shows the way in which the bottom of the legs (cuffs) is finished on all the pants in the study except the Tolson example which is believed to have been altered after issue. Most CS trousers are finished in the same way. The end of each leg has been turned up inside and simply overcast down. Usually, the stitching is visible from the outside at the cuff of the finished pants. Federal trousers were generally finished differently with a split left at the outside seam (often overlapped) to allow the pant to better fit around the shoe or boot of the soldier.

The images above show the cuffs looking side of four of the examples. A comparable shot for the Selden pants is included in the section on “Anomalies” where the red piping on his pants is discussed. The treatment of the Tolson pants also will be discussed under “Anomalies.” The Wilson example was handled in the same way as the others, but conservation work is obscuring some of how it looked originally.

This above image of RD pants, seen from the back, illustrates the pattern characteristics. An external yoke or trapezoidal piece added to the back panels, common in Federal trousers, is not present. Such a pattern element, while rare, is also seen in some other non RCB C.S. pants. All the examples in the study were originally made with an adjustment belt at the back. Apparently, some soldiers found this unnecessary or bothersome and removed it (Taylor and Wilson) in the field. There are no grommet holes on any of pants indicating that tie strings or laces like are found on Federal trousers were not provided for adjustment, only the belt.

The separation (split) at the waistband extends a short way down the back seat seam on the pants. In one example (Wilson), the split in the entire waistband/back seam was sewn together, perhaps for better fit. This also is believed to have been a field modification because the work was done using period thread and was very crudely executed.

Two brace (suspender) buttons were usually attached to the waistband in back, one on each side of the waistband split. Evidence of their presence is seen on the Wilson example, but they were removed, along with those in the front, probably at the time the back split was sewed together

The images above show the rear area on the four examples that retain their adjustment belts. One anomaly observed in the Selden pants is the absence of brace buttons (even in the front) nor evidence that any were ever attached. Some men of the period preferred a waist belt and would have not required braces to hold up their pants. Since they were likely made privately for Selden, the pants were probably fitted to him by the tailor during construction so the adjustment belt was all that was needed to “fine tune” their size to his personal needs if only his waist belt would be used. In any event, as private purchase pants, Selden apparently deleted them in his order.

All of the enlisted men’s examples, including the Wilson pants, originally did come with six brace buttons, however. Federal enlisted men’s trousers for foot soldiers only came with four, two in back and two (one on each side) in front. U.S. mounted men’s trousers came with six like RCB pants. Braces were not issued in either army but were privately obtained by the soldiers themselves.

The buckles on the adjustment belts are visible in these pictures. Two of the four buckles (Tolson and Hollyday) today are termed “vest and trouser” buckles. One of those is brass colored and the other is black. The other two (Redwood and Selden) are commonly called “suspender” buckles today. Those are both brass colored. Apparently, such a functional distinction may not have been made during the period as other Confederate pants were also made using either type on their adjustment belts.

The shape and size of the adjustment belt is believed to be suggestive of RCB made pants but not uniquely diagnostic. In the cases where the belt is still present, they are very close in shape and size suggesting a common pattern was used. Its location and orientation vary, however, as can be seen from these images but as shown, the basic shape is the same. The positioning on the Tolson pants may have been more typical, however, as close inspection of where stitching was removed on both the Wilson and Taylor examples indicates that the belts were overlapping the waistband on those pants as well.

While not shown in this picture, all belts still present were made in two pieces, the outer (visible) side made from the pant fabric and the back from the same osnaburg used elsewhere in the pants. In some examples these were simply sewn together, turned inside out, and pressed flat with no topstitching along the edge (Redwood and Selden). On others, the edges of the pieces were turned under and the back piece was overcast to the front piece (Hollyday and Tolson). This stitching can be seen in the images.

The inside arrangement and construction of RD pants, taken as a whole, provides additional common characteristics found in all the study examples. The images above show the inside of the Henry Hollyday pants to illustrate these. As will be discussed later, certain variations do occur but the general consistency between the examples studied strongly suggests a common manufacturing source for all.

Undyed cotton osnaburg is used in construction of the pocket bags, waistband linings, and the back body linings (or inside “yoke”). Virtually the same as the lining material typically found in RD jackets, this is a constant in the examples studied. Through much of the war three separate mills in Petersburg provided the cotton goods for linings and facings for uniform production at the RCB as well as fabric for making shirts and drawers.

The images above show the inside view of all examples considered in the study. The consistency of the arrangement and pattern of the various pieces is easily seen. The following slides will highlight several areas of the interior for further scrutiny.

This image shows the interior construction around and including the pocket bag. Among the examples studied, several significant variations were found in this area making it a point of diversion from the striking similarity observed among elsewhere. These “anomalies” will be addressed later in the presentation but, nevertheless, several things about the pattern and construction are consistent. For example, as has been pointed out earlier, the stitching from attachment of the inside pocket facings is done the same way. The waistband lining extends the length of the entire waistband. The pocket bag seam has either been turned inside and a line of topstitching (running stitches) added to strengthen it or, if not turned, “whip” stitches were looped around the raw edge for additional strength and to help keep that exposed edge from fraying in use.

None of the RD pants included in the study have any form of watch pocket. This is a significant point in evaluation of purported RCB made pants. Such pockets are often found in other C.S. pants and are often present in Federal examples. If a watch pocket were supposed to be included, the kits supplied to assemblers, it is believed, should have had pieces for their construction included. Deletion of such a feature would also seem beyond “seamstress choice” variations likely to have been overlooked by the clothing bureau inspectors. However, considering the hundreds of thousands of other pairs of pants made through the RCB during the conflict, in a sample size this small, “proving the negative” is an exceedingly difficult proposition!

These images show the pocket area inside for each of the pants in the study. As mentioned above two significant variations or anomalies are observed in several of the examples. First, two examples have two-piece pocket bags, the Taylor pants and the Selden pants. Second, the way in which the back lining (inside yoke) is connected to the pocket bag at the side seam varied. Two, the Taylor and the Tolson examples, were constructed in a way different from the other four and different from each other as well. These variations be discussed later as part of the “Anomalies” section.

The pattern and construction of the very rear area of RD pants seen from the inside are illustrated in this figure. All the examples were remarkably similar but were assembled in slightly different ways. While seen on some other Confederate pants, an osnaburg back lining or inside yoke is believed characteristic of all RCB produced pants and only slight variations in the design and implementation were noted among the six examples. The yoke on the Selden pants is larger than the others, more generously cut and extending further down the rear seat seam. Also, several different approaches were observed in how the lower unsecured edge of the yoke was finished which will be discussed in the “Anomalies” section.

The way in which the waistband lining’s lower edge was connected to the yoke, and pocket bag appears to have been largely “seamstress choice.” In some cases, the upper edge of the yoke was first attached to the lower side of the waistband, then the yoke turned down, and the seam pressed flat. In others it appears, the waistband lining bottom edge was turned under, overlapping the upper edge of the yoke and pocket bag, and overcast down. However, both methods seem to have been used at different points along the waistband lining on all. Unfortunately, the original assembly method in some examples is obscured because the linings apparently separated from use and either period repairs or later professional conservation has been done to restore the original seams.

In all examples, the top of the waistband lining and waistband were both turned under and the lining overcast down along the edge of the waistband which was left slightly “proud,” so that the lining was not visible from the outside. This continued down at each end of the waistband as well. The stitching attaching the adjustment belt is seen here as well.

The above images show a comparison of the rear of each example viewed from the inside to illustrate the points made on the last slide.

The image shows construction at the point of attachment between the inside yoke, waistband lining and the pocket bag at the leg side seam. As will be discussed in the next section, “Anomalies,” two basic ways were used by the assemblers to handle where the three inside elements meet to attach them together and hide the seam. This appears to have been a high stress point as several have come undone at this point due to tearing of the cloth or breaking of the stitches. The type of connection shown seems to have been the most common and in the Hollyday pants, as shown, remains intact.

From study of original RD jackets, surviving examples tend to display variations in construction details even within sample that have survived. These variations range from simple differences in sewing techniques employed to relatively significant ways different “pieceworkers” put them together during final assembly. It is probable that the RCB “kits” did not come with “assembly instructions” for the seamstresses. Furthermore, in studying surviving jackets 155 years after war’s end, both in service (“field”) and post war modifications are often found and later conservation work has changed or obscured the garment’s original construction details. It should not be a surprise that these types of variations (‘anomalies”) are found in RD pants as well. Some such anomalies have been noted in the preceding discussion.

In the following section seven different anomalies noted in the study will be looked at. The first three, treatment of the forward edge on the “buttonhole fly” (left) side of the front, pocket bag construction, and how the inside connection between the pocket bag and inside yoke was treated, are relatively significant. The remaining four, how the yoke bottom was finished, the custom trim on the Selden pants, modifications made to “fix” the Tolson pants, and the unusual patching and piecing of the Hollyday pants can be characterized as minor, but notable, variations, motivated by the owner’s personal preferences, which possibly are the result of the “cutters work” or which are just a little weird.

• Fly Construction – Buttonhole side edge closure

  • Closed seam, open, and “bar tacked”

• Pocket Bag Construction

  • One-piece vs Two-piece

• Pocket Bag to Yoke joining methods

  • Overlap vs Covered seam

• Back Lining Yoke – “handling the lower edge”

• Custom Trim – Leg piping on Selden pants

• Tolson pant Modifications

  • Waistband closure

  • Cuff reinforcement

• Hollyday pant Patching and Piecing

The way in which the front of the buttonhole fly (left) side is constructed on the six examples illustrates a significant difference in how different “pieceworkers” assembled the pants they made. They also represent different philosophies on how the fly’s “user interface” should function. As was explained earlier, the buttonhole fly on RD pants was constructed of four separate layers of fabric. The inner two facings, one made of the pant fabric and one of osnaburg, are where the buttonholes were cut and stitched (“buttonhole stitch”). The outer layer is the front left side panel of the pant leg and inside that is another facing of osnaburg. All three inner facings are secured to the pant leg at the rear edge with through stitching. Three different methods were used for the forward edge in the study examples.

The images above illustrate the most common way in which this was done. Four of the pants had the layers completely sewed together along the forward edge. In three of these (Wilson, Hollyday and Redwood) the two inner facings were attached to the leg and the outermost facing with “running” or, possibly, “back” stitches, then turned and pressed flat before the rear facing edges were secured to the pant leg. On the Selden example they were overcast together. Either of these had the main functional result of creating a seam which eliminated access to the back side of the buttonhole when the fly was being “buttoned” or “unbuttoned” by the soldier. They were, however, simple, and easy for the assembler to accomplish.

These images show the construction of the left side on the Taylor pants. The front edge on this example between the layer with buttonholes and the pants panel with its “lining” is left open. This provides the soldier full access to the back side of the inner buttonhole facing when “buttoning” or “unbuttoning” the fly. While this way probably provides a better “user interface” (faster when in a hurry!), it also requires more finishing of the inner edges of the facings, in this case overcast stitched to keep them secure. It is noted that this construction philosophy is typical in Federal enlisted men’s pants.

These images illustrate how the Tolson pants were done. Something of a variation on the last methodology, the inner facings have been handled similarly, being overcast down, so the front edge is open rather than closed, but “bar tacks” have been added securing the two sides together at points between the buttonholes. This still allows access to the backside of the buttonholes themselves but secures the inner layers at the front directly to the outer layers in a more positive fashion. This also is the most time intensive construction method.

Since Tolson’s pants were extensively modified by a seamstress he hired to make other “fixes,” it is possible that this was not done during original assembly but these “bar tacks” were done later when Tolson had the other modifications made. The thread used appears contemporaneous with that used in the rest of the construction as well as the modifications, so it is period and not later conservation.

The pocket bag construction and orientation differ within the study group. Four of the examples have one-piece pocket bags, folded over and two are assembled from two separate pieces. The images above show the arrangement in those with one-piece pocket construction.

In preparation to construct the pocket bag, here the original osnaburg piece would have had both pocket facings sewn to it as discussed earlier under “characteristics.” The pocket ultimately was folded over to form the pocket’s shape but method of assembly with the pant front was handled slightly differently even among these four examples. The pocket bags’ edges on the Tolson and Redwood pants were either first turned under, then sewed together along the open edge or sewed together first, then turned inside out, pressed, and topstitched for added strength. Either way, the raw edge was inside the finished pockets.

On the Wilson and Hollywood examples the picket bag was closed by sewing along the outside edge but they were not turned. “Whip” stitches were looped around the raw edge for additional strength and to help keep that exposed edge from fraying in use.

The pocket bags were attached to the pants’ front in the same way so that from what was visible when worn they looked the same. The pocket as installed was positioned such that the folded edge was forward when the pants were complete.

Two examples, the Taylor and Selden pants, have pocket bags constructed in a very different way. On these examples the each pocket bag was assembled from two pieces of osnaburg. This is seen in the images shown above. These pieces were cut as essentially half of the shape of the folded version and were seamed together along both the curved and straight edges. The method of seaming used is noted from one of the images of the Taylor pant pocket showing open seams. The pocket bag piece edges were only turned under and secured to each other by a single line of “running” stitches without additional topstitching. In these examples the orientation of the pocket bag was also changed in the finished pants. Now the straight edge is to the rear and the curved one forward. It follows that with two-piece pocket bags implemented in this way, the placement of the pocket facings would have been reversed to properly match with the pants’ front panels. The construction to attach the pocket bags to those panels was probably similar since, again, from what was visible when worn, as they look the same.

It cannot be said with certainty why these were constructed so differently from the first four. It is unlikely that this was purely “seamstress choice.” That is, it is doubtful the assembler purposely cut single piece pocket bags apart only to sew them back together again. The original design of the pocket saved work. The “folded over” pocket design is not universally found in all period trousers. Several other Confederate examples that the author is familiar with from photographs were made of two pieces and it is also seen in a few civilian examples, but, in general, it is very unusual. The change in orientation is even more unusual.

One speculation could be that the two pieces used for each pocket bag represented frugal use of fabric allowing more pockets to be cut out by using “cutting table” scraps. The Taylor pants represent arguably the earliest example of RD pants. The Selden pants are believed privately made and perhaps only connected to the others through the person who made them. From records, the RCB seems to not have experienced sustained cotton fabric shortages, however, so frugality in osnaburg usage, if encountered at all, was of very limited duration. Also, as was noted earlier, one observed difference in the Selden pants was somewhat more extensive use of this material in the inside yoke pieces implying that this should not have been a problem with respect to the pocket bags either.

Unfortunately, at this time no answer to this anomaly can be determined, especially given the limited sample size. It is hoped future research will help clarify it.

From examination of examples in this study, one of the “weak points” in construction for many was the place where the inner back yoke connected to the pocket bag. A lot of things are going on in the immediate area around that point. The waistband lining also is attached to the yoke and pocket bag there. The outside side seam of the pant leg is there as well, as is the waistband attachment seam. Also, at this point both the back and front pocket facings are tied into the pant leg panel. Those complex intersections are further exasperated because that area is a stress point in use. Whatever the reasons, separation of the seam between the yoke and pocket bag and/or ripping of the fabric there is found on many the pants studied.

Basically, two conceptual construction methods for connection of the yoke to the pocket bag were noted but even then, variations in execution occurred as well. The images above illustrate the most typical method. As can be seen the edge of the pocket bag was turned under and overlaps the end of the yoke. The connection was then overcast in place continuing further down securing the pocket bag to pant leg. partially covering the outside leg seam allowance. The degree of stress exerted in this area is obvious in these pictures as several have threads broken and at least one has ripped apart.

It is interesting to note that this construction approach was clearly not a function of the pocket bag construction as the Selden pants which have a two-piece pocket were handled the same way as the others which have one-piece pockets. However, it is noted from the photograph of that area in that example that the waistband lining was also pieced on those pants.

The other two study examples handle the yoke’s connection to the pocket bag in a conceptually different way and then, execute that differently as well. The Taylor and the Tolson pants each have a small separate piece of osnaburg which is added connecting the two sides while covering the ends. Each method provides additional reinforcement to the area at the cost of additional work (time) in construction.

The images above illustrate how this was done on the Taylor pants. A small piece of osnaburg, turned under to avoid raw edges was overcast down to the pocket bag and the yoke. It extends under the waistband lining. As can be seen in the detail, the overcast stitches on one side of this piece have broken again illustrating the stress on this area.

The different approach used on the Tolson pants is shown in the images on this slide. This may have been the most intricate construction method seen among the various examples studied but also the most secure. The added piece in this case was secured to the pocket bag with a form of “overcast” stitch (also termed a “hemming” stitch) then it was folded over and turned around the edge of the pocket bag. It was also sewn underneath securing it to the yoke. To keep the “rolled” covering piece in place it was stitched where it passed under the waistband, at the end and, on this side, by “tack” stitches in the middle through all layers. Perhaps the “tack” stitches were an afterthought by the assembler because these are missing on the other side. Clearly an elaborate and time-consuming assembly technique.

The way in which the lower edge of the yoke was handled differed among the examples not only reflecting “seamstress choice” decisions but also dependent on how the pattern piece was cut out by the RCB “cutter.” The best way to handle this edge was to make it a selvage edge, that is, cut the pieces so that that specific edge was aligned on the fabric selvage. This was done to both sides on two of the study examples and on one side of another (Tolson) as is shown in the above images.

On two of the other examples, the pieces were not cut out in this way and the edges were left “raw” by the assembler. On these, use in the field caused the edges to fray. The Tolson pair was also left “raw” on the side not cut on the selvage again resulting in fraying with wear.

On the Taylor pants, the edge (raw) was turned under and secured with a crude “running” stitch preventing fraying but requiring additional labor in the construction.

The above images show how trim piping was added to the Selden pants. Since it is presumed that these were privately made for him, this was likely an embellishment added at his request as denoting his position an ordinance officer for an Artillery battalion. The 1863 Regulations for “Uniform and Dress of the Army” specified that “For Regimental officers – a stripe of cloth on the outer seam, one inch and a quarter in width; color according to corps: for Artillery, red; Cavalry, yellow; Infantry, dark blue.” Such piping would have been a substitute for the “cloth strip,” if visibly less prominent, it was more secure and less likely to come undone in the field.

The trim was added at the time the outer seam of the leg was sewn and not a later addition or modification. While this is one of the main factors supporting the conclusion that these were not modified enlisted men’s issue pants, it is noted that the hem at the bottom cuff was handled in the same way that they were treated in the rest of the sample group.

Thomas Tolson’s diary entry made on 10 February 1865 discussing the changes in his uniform jacket and pants has been a key clue for establishing the provenance of these pants and explaining unusual features that they display. His well-documented RD type III jacket (Volume I) in the collection of the Maryland Center for History and Culture (formerly the Maryland Historical Society) was first discussed both by Jensen and Ross Kimmel in separate articles written in Military Collector & Historian in 1989. The pants, however, only were recognized as being part of his uniform eighteen years later having been mislabeled sometime after both were donated to the Maryland Historical Society in 1929. The presence of the number of post issue, period modifications that were made to the pants as referenced in Tolson’s diary entry were critical in determining their true original ownership.

One of the changes Tolson had made to his pants was the incorporation of linings or reinforcements inside the front of each leg at the bottom hem using cotton osnaburg like that used elsewhere in the pants and what also was used in the linings of RD jackets. This may be significant, since the major modification made to Tolson’s jacket was removal of its osnaburg body lining and substitution of another made from mixed woolen fabrics (discussed in Volume I). It is possible the osnaburg used in the pants came from the discarded lining of his jacket but since such fabric was also a relatively common civilian textile, that obviously cannot be said for certain.

The purpose for these additions was possibly to prevent boot wear at the pant hems but also would have reinforced that area to maintain the proper appearance when they were being worn (i.e., from a style perspective). Regardless, these linings were neatly and professionally added after manufacture by a competent tailor or seamstress in a timeframe contemporaneous with their original manufacture. The images above show how they were installed, and evidence of the stitching seen on the outside of the legs. They were higher in the front of the pant leg. At the same time, the bottom of the pants was shaped slightly to fit across the instep area of the shoe.

The second modification made to Tolson’s pants was to change the waistband closure arrangement to obscure the attachment buttons as mentioned earlier. This was quite a common feature in civilian trousers of the period and perhaps Tolson liked that style better. The images above show the elements of this change. The buttonhole stitching was removed from the original buttonhole and it was closed to very neatly obscure what remained, perhaps using yarns taken from the EAC fabric itself as “darning” thread. On the back, two blackened bone buttons were added. On the other (right) side of the waistband two corresponding buttonholes were also added so that when Lt. Tolson “put on his pants” no one would see the buttons.

Piecing is common, even expected in Civil War garments. If anything, in the author’s experience, it is even more prevalent in Federal uniform garments than Confederate, and it is also seen in civilian clothing as well. Textiles were expensive in relation to labor, so as much of the “cutting table” scrap was used as possible. Usually, facings, collars, and other long or slender pattern elements were be made up from such remnants. They could be used to extend fabric to accommodate making extra wide garment pieces like greatcoat capes or frock coat skirts. However, piecing was also used to repair problems in mill output such as areas with weaving problems, holes, or rips to maximize the utilization of the valuable fabric.

The images of two areas in the pant legs of the Hollyday example illustrate where piecing and patching was done, one of which is definite and one which is felt probable. First, the left pant leg at the bottom cuff has had a rectangular patch added to the end. One edge of this patch is a continuation of the inseam. When the pants were assembled the patch was incorporated into the inseam and turned up along the bottom to be overcast to the leg as usual. This was clearly not a later repair. The images show that the outside surface and color of the fabric matches the surrounding area and inside the surface is undisturbed.

Second, the knee patch in the right leg may also be a pre-manufacture repair done to utilize damaged fabric, but this judgement is somewhat more equivocal. It is noted from the images of it on the inside and outside of the leg, that the patch was executed in a very secure, and meticulous manner. Whoever did the work was skillful in its execution. While possible this was done by Hollyday or another soldier for him in a field environment, it shows little of the usual crudity and rapid execution typically encountered in “field repairs.” Nevertheless, that is possible. It could also have been done for Hollyday by a seamstress or someone similar perhaps during a quiet period in camp. The pants history indicates Hollyday received them in March 1865. At that time his unit was actively campaigning in the Petersburg area and continued to do so through the remainder of the war but, again this explanation is possible.

It could be, however, that this was done before the pants were issued to utilize a piece of damaged fabric or to repair a pair of pants damaged some other way before they were issued. Several factors argue that this was, in fact, the case. First, the shape of the hole and the patch are roughly rectangular in shape not consistent with either a hole made in use or scrap fabric being used to repair it in the field. Second, the stitching is very regular and precise on both the inside and outside of the leg, suggesting that whoever did the work could easily access both sides while working on it. Finally, and perhaps most suggestive, the material used in the patch is the same as the pants were made from. The patch area visible underneath the leg opening shows the same undisturbed surface finish and color that can be seen on the inside of piecing on the other leg. This suggests, but certainly does not prove, that they were done at the same time.

If the patch was not done pre issue, it is perhaps the nicest work the author has seen. If it is, it illustrates the lengths that the RCB would go to maximize utilization of domestically manufactured fabric at the end of the war. You be the judge.

This concludes the presentation of “Characteristics and Anomalies” for these six pairs of Richmond Depot pants focusing on pattern and construction. There are a few “odds and ends” which will be addressed in the following slides before an attempt is made to summarize conclusions from this study.

First, as discussed at the beginning of Part 2, another dimension of this analysis should be whether the materials, specifically textiles and buttons, used in them examples are consistent with what is documented to have been used in RCB garment production during the period. That is, are these what should be expected for RD pants?

Also, while it was mentioned earlier that the presence of Gibson buttons is an important factor in attribution of the Taylor pants to the RCB, there are also other buttons attached to them believed to be later substitutions. These will be identified along thoughts on their significance.

Finally, period photographs showing details of the pants being worn by soldiers are rarer than those showing jackets. Few “studio portraits” focus on a soldier’s pants. Most “group” field pictures are likewise lacking in details of that area. However, some insight can be gained about issued pants characteristics from pictures of battlefield dead. Pictures taken of Confederate dead in the trenches at Fort Mahone in April 1865 will be examined which show such pants, independently corroborating the RD pant characteristics discussed above.

In the third part of Volume I, there is an in-depth discussion of fabrics which were used by the RCB in jacket production of both domestic and British origin. The reader who is unfamiliar with that presentation is encouraged to review it if interested in more complete information about the various types typically used. The first part of this Volume also spent time on the subject, revising some of the material presented in the Volume I analysis.

Throughout this discussion the commonality of the undyed cotton osnaburg used for linings in RD jackets and in the examples of pants has been noted. This was relatively common fabric, widely used in civilian clothing as well. The images above show closeups of the different wool and wool - on – cotton textiles used in the six study examples. These fabrics are types specifically documented in Confederate records of RCB delivery invoices, likely made by the same domestic mills and British suppliers as textiles used in the jackets.

The sky-blue kersey EAC in the Redwood and Selden pants was imported only for pants. Confederate records also confirm that large quantities of such sky-blue fabric were received at the RCB especially in 1864 and 1865. Blue-gray EAC was imported for Confederate use throughout the war. The close match of the plain weave EAC in the Wilson trousers to the Milhouse jacket confirms this variant was used in RCB production during the late 1864 to 1865 period. The similarity of the wool-on-cotton cassimere used on the Taylor and Hollyday pants was called off in RCB delivery records of at least one Virginia mill throughout the war as mentioned in the above description of those examples.

Those buttons on these pants, which are believed to be original, are also consistent with types documented to have been received at the RCB in large quantities. Between November 1862 and January 1865 approximately 13.5 million wooden buttons made by John & George Gibson, a Richmond Carpentry firm of which 4.6 million were “pant” size and 4.7 million were “shirt” size. English made, black (“japanned”), 4-hole, stamped metal buttons were also imported regularly, as well, documented in large deliveries recorded in the Shipping Book, Richmond Clothing Depot, 1863-1865. This was particularly true in the last half of 1864 into 1865. Both types are represented in the pants analyzed in this study. The late war provenance of most of these pants in the study probably explains the dominance of black stamped buttons in this sample.

A perplexing “anomaly” likely introduced on the Taylor pants at some point after the war are several “unusual” replacement buttons. Shown in the above images along with ones believed to be surviving originals, these are perplexing because they may have been added by a later 20th Century owner. All the buttons were reattached at the same time with non-period thread.

Three “suspender” buttons on the waistband, one on the right front (shown) and two on the back have been replaced with wooden buttons obviously different from the four Gibson “pant” size found elsewhere on the waistband. The differences can be seen from the images. Their dating and original source are unknown. It is not believed they are “period” handmade buttons but were a later effort to simulate the Gibson originals.

Likewise, only two of six actual Gibson “shirt” size buttons apparently survived with the trousers. These were reattached to the pocket facings where they would be visible. As pointed out earlier in this presentation, white bone discs (“button reinforcements/corset buttons”) have been substituted the Gibson buttons originally on the pants’ fly. These are even less likely to have been placed there in the “period” because their intended use at the time was clearly different and conventional bone buttons would have been relatively easy for the RCB to come by. During the war they contracted with the Union Manufacturing Co of Richmond for thousands of bone shirt and pant bone for their use.

It can only be speculated as to why this was done and when. Perhaps a clue is provided by the 1830’s Virginia seal buttons on the jacket that accompanied the pants, which it is believed were replaced by either the private collector from whom the Atlanta History Center acquired the ensemble or the “unnamed” Ohio museum or Historical Society that had them before that. Of course, one of Taylor’s relations may have done this as well. Given the “fog” of their history, we probably will never know the answers to these questions.

Perhaps some of the strongest independent evidence corroborating the characteristics of Richmond Depot pants is provided from photographs taken of Confederate soldiers wearing them. Sadly, these are more typically pictures in their death rather than in life. The above images are photographs from the Library of Congress taken at Ft. Mahone on 3 April 1865 by Thomas C. Roche of two dead Confederate soldiers in the trenches after the successful assault by Federal IX Corps on the preceding day.

The image and closeups above on the right show several details discussed in the text. The “Mule’s ear” pocket shape, buttonhole and topstitching around the flap can clearly be seen. On this pair the front edge of the left (“buttonhole fly) side of the pants appears to be sewn closed, and at the bottom of the pant leg the end has been turned up and overcast down inside the pant leg.

The closeup image from the picture of the soldier on the left also shows the “Mule ear” pockets. but visible as well are Gibson buttons in both the “pant” size and the “shirt” size used on the pants. Partially obscured by the folded over flap of the waistband of the soldier’s drawers is yet another Gibson button by which the drawers’ waistband itself was secured.

Other images in the Roche group also show what appear to be “Mule ear” pockets also with buttonholes and, at least one other, provides some indication of the inside fly construction details all suggesting RCB manufacture. However, not enough other clear details can be seen in these to confirm they are also RD pants.

• Based upon six examples studied, pants made by the Richmond Clothing Bureau share common characteristics

  • Squared off “Mule’s ear” or French style pockets with button closure and topstitched around the “ear” flap

  • Four-button fly with buttonhole facing lined with osnaburg pieces and “button fly” side extension with osnaburg facing

  • Center waistband button closure, six brace/suspender buttons, a split at the back and osnaburg waistband lining

  • Osnaburg pocket bags and internal osnaburg back-reinforcement yoke

  • Back adjustment belt

  • Cuff hem turned up inside and overcast

  • Straight, full width leg

  • No lacing grommets provided on waistband

  • No watch-pocket

  • No external yoke

• Anomalies – Variances in construction or other differences are

  • Pocket bag construction and orientation

  • Treatment of the edge between the buttonhole fly facing and the front panel of the left pant leg

  • Seam execution between the back-reinforcement yoke and the pocket bag

  • Treatment of back yoke bottom edge

  • Post manufacture field modifications. piecing and repair patches

• Overall, the construction and execution, textiles and buttons, and types of anomalies are consistent with those observed in RCB made jackets

Unfortunately, like RD jackets, Richmond Depot pants did not come with labels specifying where they were made. This study, through the images and accompanying text, makes the case that the six examples examined display common pattern, material, and construction characteristics which strongly support attribution to the Richmond Clothing Bureau, especially when coupled with history of usage in the principal theater of war it served. Clearly, the sample set is tiny in relation to the hundreds of thousands of pairs the RCB made during the conflict. As such, this work only represents a first step effort to capture the production characteristics of RD pants.

From examination of the study examples. some pattern characteristics do surface. The pocket style (“Mule’s ear”) with a nearly square corner and roughly equal sides is consistent, as is presence of a buttonhole in the flap corner to button the pocket closed. The pocket bag attachment method including inside facings, top stitching around the edge, and stop stitching at the ends also is common to all.

The fly area construction was done the same way on all. While generally similar to all period men’s pants, the execution of various details like the inner osnaburg layers of the buttonhole fly side and the way the button fly facing was handled was the same in all the examples. The button arrangement on the waistband was originally also consistent on the five pairs thought to be standard enlisted men’s issue (only the Selden pants differed).

All the internal linings, facings, and the pocket bags were made from undyed cotton osnaburg like what was used for lining fabric used in RD jackets. All examples had an inside reinforcement back yoke made from the same fabric. They all shared a split waistband and originally had an adjustment belt in the back of similar shape and construction. The leg pattern was straight, the same width at the knee as at the cuff. All had the bottom of the leg finished by simply turning it up and overcasting the edge to the pant leg.

Some notable pattern and construction features often encountered in other period military pants were not present. No grommets were provided on any example for back laces or ties for size adjustments. Watch pockets were also not provided. Finally, while an inside yoke was included, the basic pattern did not have an external yoke or trapezoidal piece added to the back panels of the pants.

In the study of RD jackets variations (“anomalies”) in either construction philosophy or its execution are common. The same is true in RD pants. Perhaps the most significant was in pocket bags where some of the “kits” supplied by the “cutters” may have had pocket bags cut as two separate pieces resulting in different construction and orientation in the completed pants. The way the front edge of the buttonhole fly (left) side of the fly was finished differed, probably was a “seamstress choice” decision. The execution at the seam connecting the yoke to the pocket bag (apparently a stress point) was implemented in different ways by the assemblers as well. Several other minor anomalies were also found.

Overall, based upon the factors of provenance, pattern, fabrics and buttons used, and construction, these six pairs of pants are believed representative of those made at the RCB and exemplify the characteristics common to all RD pants. More specifically, these characteristics should provide a benchmark for future evaluation of other examples attributed to this Confederate Quartermaster manufacturing operation.

End of Part 2