“What They Wore.”

Recreation of Two Uniform Jackets Linked to the Battle of Spotsylvania

By Richard M. Milstead, PhD.

Part 1:

The Battle, the Soldiers, and the Two Uniform Jackets linked to them.

Author’s note: this paper was written in conjunction with an exhibit at the Fifth Maine Museum located on Peak’s Island, Maine. It focuses on the Fifth Maine Volunteers’ actions at the Battle of Spotsylvania on May 10, 1864, as well as highlighting two original garments, looking at their provenance and contextual relationship to two individuals in that regiment. The author was guest curator for this project and also recreated two garments for the display based upon those originals. In this paper, text with accompanying photographs illustrates how those recreations were made. The intent is not to necessarily portray either period or modern “best” tailoring practices nor to suggest 100% accuracy in the representation of all details in their construction. Rather it is to illustrate different elements of period tailoring philosophy and construction techniques represented by each.

May 10, 1864 – Upton’s Charge

“Our officers and men accomplished all that could be expected of brave men.”

In May 1864, the Union Army of the Potomac under General Ulysses S. Grant was engaged in a major offensive against the Confederate Army of General Robert E. Lee. Bloody fighting had already occurred in an area of Virginia called the Wilderness on May 5-6, continuing two days later near the village of Spotsylvania Court House. The Fifth Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment was a veteran unit in May 1864, having left the State of Maine in 1861 and was scheduled to be mustered out that July. They were part of Col. Emory Upton’s Second Brigade of the First Division in the Sixth Army Corps of Grant’s Army.

On the afternoon of May 9, Upton approached General David A. Russell, his division commander, with a bold plan to strike the Confederate breastworks with a swift, focused attack by a column of Union troops. After consultation with the Corps commander, Russell approved Upton’s plan. The Fifth Maine was one of 12 handpicked units selected for Upton’s assault to be made the next day on Confederate General Richard S. Ewell’s 2nd Corps trenches in an area defended by George Doles’ Georgia Brigade supported by Daniel’s North Carolina and Walker’s Virginia (Stonewall) Brigades. In his official report of the action Upton described the plan for the attack(1):

“The lines were arranged from right to left as follows: First line, One hundred and twenty-first New York, Ninety-Sixth Pennsylvania, Fifth Maine Volunteers; second line, Forty-ninth Pennsylvania, Sixth Maine, Fifth Wisconsin Volunteers; third line, Forty-third New York, Seventy-seventh New York, One hundred and nineteenth Pennsylvania Volunteers; fourth line, Second Vermont, Fifth Vermont, Sixth Vermont Volunteers”….”The pieces of the first line were loaded and capped; those of the other lines were loaded but not capped; bayonets were fixed. The One hundred and twenty-first New York and Ninety-sixth Pennsylvania Volunteers were instructed as soon as the works were carried, to turn to the right and charge the battery. The Fifth Maine was to change front to the left and open an enfilading fire upon the enemy to the left.” (Figure 2)

Upton’s men went forward around 6:35 PM in the evening of the May 10 following a short artillery bombardment. The column successfully breached the rebel lines after desperate hand to hand fighting. The momentum of Fifth Maine carried it beyond the principal trench line, driving troops of the 2nd and 33rd Virginia regiments from the Stonewall Brigade before them. Ultimately, the lack of reinforcements combined with a vigorous Confederate counterattack drove the Yankee’s back but not before Doles’ brigade was wrecked.(2) In his report Upton stated(3):

“Our loss in this assault was about 1,000 in killed, wounded, and missing. The enemy lost at least 100 in killed at the first entrenchments, while a much heavier loss was sustained in his effort to regain them. We captured between 1,000 and 1,200 prisoners and several stand of colors…. Our officers and men accomplished all that could be expected of brave men. They went forward with perfect confidence, fought with unflinching courage, and retired only upon the receipt of a written order, after having expended the ammunition of their dead and wounded comrades….”

In the May 10 action, the Fifth Maine was severely mauled, losing more than half of the approximately 200 effectives making the attack, either killed or wounded.(4) Upton’s Brigade with other Sixth Corps units were again engaged two days later in the massive assault on the so called “bloody angle” on May 12, supporting Major General Hancock’s Union Second Corps. At that time, the unit suffered additional men killed, wounded, and missing in action. In the final Brigade casualty report prepared on May 13, its total losses at Spotsylvania were reported to be 148 men including 12 officers.(5)

The Soldiers and the Jackets

Two existing original Civil War jackets, associated with members of the Fifth Maine Volunteers, are linked by the events of May 10, 1864. One jacket was worn that day by a member of the regiment wounded in the attack and the second, worn by a Confederate prisoner, was taken as a souvenir by another. One was a “private purchase,” commercially made garment and the other the product of a large Government operated clothing manufacturing operation. Ultimately, both were preserved by those veterans when they returned home after the war.

1st Sergeant Enoch Whittemore, Jr, of Company I and his Jacket

Enoch Whittemore, Jr. of Woodstock, ME was 18 years old when he enlisted as a private in Company I of the Fifth Maine Volunteers on June 24, 1861. He was promoted to Corporal in October of that year. Seriously wounded in action at Crampton’s Gap during the Antietam Campaign on September 14, 1862, he returned to duty with the Regiment in February 1863.(6) He was wounded again on May 3, 1863, in the Sixth Corp’s attack on Marye’s Heights in Fredericksburg during the Chancellorsville campaign. Upon return to the unit, he was promoted to Sergeant on June 15, 1863, two weeks before Gettysburg. On February 5, 1864 Whittemore was promoted again, this time to 1st Sergeant of I Company.

By May 1864 Whittemore was a seasoned veteran who had participated in the unit’s battles throughout the previous two and a half years of the conflict. We do not know when or how he obtained the jacket (Figure 3) he was wearing at that time, but it is unusual because it is not a standard Government issue enlisted man’s coat but rather was privately made and purchased by him, likely sometime the preceding winter or spring given the 1st Sergeant chevrons which adorn his jacket. At least two other NCOs in the Fifth Maine Volunteers are known to have acquired such jackets, possibly at the same time as Whittemore got his. Pictures in the William B. Adams collection at the Fifth Maine Museum show 1st Sergeant Simon L. Johnson and Sergeant Charles E, Harris, both of Company K, wearing very similar examples (Figures 4 and 5).(7)

Enlisted soldiers who bought “private purchase” garments rather than wearing issued Army clothing had many reasons for doing so. Some simply wanted better quality or fit than what the Army provided. The Union Army only supplied uniforms in four standard sizes and poorly fitting clothing, either too large or too small, was a common complaint in the ranks. Regular U.S. Army units at the company or regimental level often had “tailors,” men who for extra money would alter what was issued for better fit.(8) This was less prevalent in volunteer units. Also, where unit commanders were less rigorous in enforcing the uniform regulations, some men who fancied more “stylish” garments, procured them through army sutlers or miliary supply houses. (Figure 6.) It is particularly notable that NCOs more frequently appear in period photographs wearing privately purchased coats than privates. Of course, NCOs also received higher pay. In 1864 sergeants made as much as $8.00 per month more than the $13.00 earned by a private soldier. Northern firms like Brooks Bothers of New York produced such clothing for members of the Union Army throughout the conflict.(9)

Enoch Whittemore’s uniform jacket is a nine-button, short jacket made from a dark blue woolen broadcloth of significantly higher quality than the woolen “kersey” of government issued dress coats, or the light weave wool flannel used for the common fatigue blouse worn by most soldiers. Also notable is that the lining is a fine green alpaca/cotton fabric instead of the courser flannel found in blouses. As per the style common in civilian men’s coats, its chest has internal canvas stiffening added and the lining is quilted with cotton ‘wadding,’ to provide additional shape and warmth.

Whittemore’s original jacket and an Army issue forage cap he owned are currently in the collection of National Museum of the United States Army at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. They were formerly in the collection of the noted Civil War Artist Don Troiani and are pictured in several of his books. The jacket has provenance as the coat he was wearing in May 1864 when he was wounded at the Battle of Spotsylvania.

Enoch Whittemore never returned to service with the Fifth Maine following the battle. He was evacuated to Washington D.C. with a leg wound and subsequently sent on to an Army convalescent hospital in Chester, PA. Leg amputation apparently was not required since from a letter home to his brother in Maine he wrote (10):

“I am expecting to be at home on the 24th of June. It is the duty of the surgeon of the hospital to furnish me transportation if I am able to travel in order that I can be mustered out with the regiment. My leg will probably be crooked for several weeks after that but if I am able to travel, I shall come home and loaf it out there.”

When other survivors of the Fifth Maine were mustered out in Portland on July 27, 1864, 1st Sergeant Enoch Whittemore, Jr. was able to join them for that ceremony.

Captain Fred G. Sanborn - “Rebel jacket taken from a prisoner at Spottsylvania [sic]”

The label quoted above represents the only clue to the provenance for a remarkable Confederate Quartermaster issue jacket produced by the Richmond Clothing Bureau’s uniform manufactory in 1864.(11) It is in the Fifth Maine Museum’s collection. The Fifth Maine Museum’s “Rebel jacket” (Figure 7) is a tantalizing artifact because its history, so succinctly summarized in the eight-word label, likely ties it to the engagement on May 10, 1864. Many existing Confederate jackets have stories that connect them to a specific soldier, but with the Museum’s jacket, we only know the jacket was taken from a Confederate prisoner at the Battle of Spotsylvania, probably by unit veteran, Captain Fred Sanborn, who donated it for display to the Fifth Maine Regimental Hall on Peak’s Island in Casco Bay in the 1880’s, but nothing more can be inferred. The “Rebel jacket” was listed in the earliest collection inventory (1956) along with several U.S. uniform items and other artifacts donated by Sanborn.

Fred G. Sanborn was from Hopkinton, NH and, like Whittemore, enlisted in the Fifth Maine Volunteers in June 1861 as a Sergeant in Company F. He was promoted to 2nd Lieutenant of Company I in May 1862 and to 1st Lieutenant in the same company that November. Sanborn returned to Company F, promoted as its Captain on April 13, 1863. Prior to the May 1864 campaign he was appointed acting Adjutant General of Upton’s Brigade and detached from the regiment. As a member of Upton’s staff, Sanborn did not take part in the assault with the regiment but was involved in arranging the column before the attack and was among the officers who handled the rebel captives following it.

In a personal note written after the war on a copy of Upton’s official after-action report, Sanborn said (12):

“Captain Lamont was the only one of seven [regimental] Captains [in the attacking column] who escaped… the assault of the 10th… [Two days later] Gen. Upton [ordered] the Fifth Maine to advance to the ‘angle’ and while they were forming Capt. Lamont approached me with the remark ‘Captain we are the only two Captains of the Fifth Maine left with the army. Whose turn is next?’ A few hours later I saw [his body] was riddled with bullets…There was not 4 inches of space about his person that had not been struck. I noted eleven bullet marks through one of the soles of his shoes – FGS.”

By the end of fighting at Spotsylvania on May 16, Sanborn was the only company Captain in the regiment who had started the campaign with it that spring, still in service with the Army.(13) Captain Sanborn’s temporary assignment may have saved him from either being wounded or killed in action there, as well as providing him with a notable souvenir (the jacket) from the battle. The Fifth Maine survivors departed for Maine at the end of their service on June 24, 1864. A month later, Sanborn, with other members of the regiment, including Whittemore, was mustered out in Portland on July 27, 1864.

The “Rebel” jacket is a 9-button woolen short jacket like Whittemore’s with light-colored wooden buttons. It adheres to the basic Richmond Depot type 2 pattern with 6 body panels and two-piece sleeves first discussed by Les Jensen in 1989.(14) The jacket’s body is constructed using heavy weight, closely woven “kersey” twill fabric characteristic of English textiles run through the blockade. The lining material is a relatively coarse, unbleached cotton fabric with a slightly open, plain weave. Such coarse cotton material, known as osnaburg in the period, is similar to lining used in other surviving Richmond Depot jackets. The most remarkable thing about this jacket is its truly phenomenal condition given its age. There is minimal staining or evidence of “in service wear” except for a few small (less than 3 cm) holes in the exterior. There is also some minor moth damage especially on the inside facings consistent with age, otherwise the fabric’s condition is excellent looking as if it is virtually un-issued.

Entirely hand sewn, its stitching is done in a very competent manner and remains virtually intact throughout the garment. It also retains its complete complement of original wooden buttons. Similar buttons are seen on Richmond jackets in many period soldier photographs and were made by the firm of John and George Gibson, a Richmond carpentry and furniture company (Figure 8.) Between November 1862 and January 1865, the Gibson Brothers delivered 13.5 million wooden buttons in three sizes (coat, pant, and shirt) to the Richmond Confederate clothing manufactory, of which slightly more than 4.1 million were “coat” sized.(15)

Extensive research has confirmed that two units in George Doles’ Georgia Brigade were issued clothing immediately before the campaign started: the 44th Georgia Infantry and Company E of the 21st Georgia Infantry (its only company present at the engagement.) Both received large clothing issues including jackets on May 2nd. Searches of the records from other participating Confederate units failed to find evidence of such jacket issues that close before the battle. On May 10th the 44th Georgia had 152 of 493 enlisted men present captured and Company E of the 21st Georgia 15 of 53 in its ranks. Of those soldiers, 75, or almost half of those captured, had received new clothing in the early May issues but, unfortunately, what each man received is unknown.(16) Artist Alfred Waud contemporaneously sketched the Confederate prisoners being driven across the field in front of Doles’ position (Figure 9.)

Can it be said for certain that the Fifth Maine Museum jacket was taken from one of Doles’ soldiers on May 10, 1864? Obviously not. Sanborn could have “collected” his souvenir at some other time during the engagement. We will never know for sure, but based upon its condition, very possibly it was issued to a Georgia soldier in that brigade only 8 days before the engagement.

Endnotes

1. Emory Upton, “Report of Brig. Gen. Emory Upton, U. S. Army, commanding Second Brigade,” The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (128 vols.), series 1, vol.36 part 1, 667-668 (afterward Upton).

2. Jeffery D. Wert, The Heart of Hell - The soldiers struggle for Spotsylvania’s Bloody Angle, Chapel Hill, NC (University of North Carolina Press, 2022), Doles’ Georgia Brigade began the battle with 1,350 officers and men but following the May 10 engagement counted only 550 remaining in ranks which represented approximately a 60% rate of killed, wounded and missing (captured) in Upton’s assault, Among the captured was General George Doles himself.

3. Upton.

4. George W Bicknell, History of the Fifth Maine Volunteers, Portland (Hall L Davis publisher, 1871), 315. Col. Clark S. Edwards estimated that 100 of roughly 200 enlisted men and 11 of 17 officers in the regiment were either killed or wounded in the action on May 10, (hereafter Bicknell.)

5. Fred G, Sanborn Papers, 1864, Library of Congress Catalog Number mm79038877, local shelving number MMC-1167, Library of Congress Manuscript Division, Washington D.C, (afterward Sanborn Papers,) Sheet 80

6. Sgt. Whittemore’s father, Enoch Whittemore, Sr. also served for the Union. After is son volunteered in 1861, the elder Whittemore stepped forward in July 1862 following Lincoln’s call for 300,000 more troops to quell the Rebellion, joining one of the new companies forming around the state. He was enlisted in the 20th Maine Volunteers, but almost immediately fell ill, being reported as “Absent Sick” from August 29 until October 31, 1861, in the regiment’s muster rolls. Not able to continue with the regiment in its journey to the front, he eventually was sent to an Army Hospital in Philadelphia, where he died of measles and typhoid fever on November 22. 1862 while his son was himself recovering from the serious wound he received during the Antietam Campaign.

7. A notation on the Johnson carte de visite in the Fifth Maine Museum collection indicates that the picture was taken on February 9, 1864 which was about the time Whittemore received his promotion so acquisition of these jackets may have represented something of a “Group buy” by the regiment’s NCOs that winter. Similar photographs of another Sixth Corps regiment the 93rd PA show both individuals and a group wearing similar jackets as well. The close proximity between Whittemore’s promotion and when Johnson had his picture taken does suggest that both soldiers may have obtained their jackets from the same source, perhaps an Army sutler or another vendor serving the Army.

8. August V. Kautz, Customs of Service for Non-Commissioned Officers and Soldiers – As Derived from Law and Regulations and Practiced by the Army of the United States, Philadelphia, PA (J. B. Lippincott & CO.), 42. “112. Company tailors. One or two tailors are usually detailed on daily duty in each company to fit and repair clothing for the men of the company. They are generally excused from such duties as materially interfere with their work and receive such compensation from the men as will remunerate them for the materials they require and the extra work they may perform, This is usually done under the direction of the commanding officer of the company, under such regulations as he may establish.”

9. Novak, Robert W., "Fashioning a Soldier: Male Clothing, Union Volunteers, and the Adaptation of a Soldierly Image" (2017). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 6330 (afterward Fashioning a Soldier,) 18-20. Novak discusses extensive commercial “ready to wear” operations in Northern cities like New York and Philadelphia which not only provided uniforms for State and Federal military organizations but garments for individuals sold through retail outlets. Brooks Brothers, for example, operated a large 4 story building on the corner of Broadway and Grand St, which housed racks and tables loaded with ready-made garments on the street level with mannequins displaying the various styles of uniforms for prospective buyers. On the upper floor 400 tailors, clerks, cutters, and working seamstresses constructed and altered these wares to meet customer’s needs.

10. Enoch Whittemore, Jr., Letter from “Chester Delaware Co. Penna May 29th / 64” to his brother, Private Collection of Curtis Mildner.

11. The origin of this slip of paper is unclear. It is of more modern origin than the timeframe when the jacket was originally donated by Sanborn. Earliest references to the jacket in inventories date from 1956 through 1981 consistently refer to it only as a “Rebel jacket” but provide a history of a continuous possession from that era to today. During the period between 1956 and 1981 the jacket along with the other items from the Hall passed through a number of hands and the original label appears to have been lost. All that can be said today is that the phrasing is consistent with late 19th Century lexicon. It is most likely a copy made of the original tag at some point before it was returned to the Museum. The jacket was also highlighted in an article about the 5th Maine Museum: Eric Champigny, “Relics of the Forest City Regiment”, North South Trader’s Civil War, Vol. 39 No.1 (2015). 46-54.

12. Sanborn Papers, Sheet 17.

13. Bicknell, 316, In the “fog of battle” Lamont may not have known, but at least three other 5th Maine Captains in the attacking column also survived the May 10 engagement, Edward M. Robinson, A.P. Harris, and John D. Ladd, all of whom were severely wounded and had probably been evacuated to field hospital. All three recovered from their wounds sufficiently to be mustered out in Portland with Whittemore, Sanborn, and other surviving members of the Regiment on July 27, 1864

14. Leslie D. Jensen, “A Survey of Confederate Central Government Quartermaster Jackets – Part 1”, Military Collector & Historian, 41, no. 3 (Fall 1989), 111 (afterward Jensen).

15. Richard M. Milstead, “John & George Gibson, House Carpenters and Builders - Providers of Buttons for the Richmond Clothing Bureau,” The Liberty Rifles, April 2021, https://www.libertyrifles.org/research/uniforms-equipment/gibson-buttons.

16. Richard M. Milstead, “The Tale of Two Jackets - Examination of Two Jackets Made by the Richmond Clothing Bureau in the Spring of 1864,” Military Collector & Historian, 69, no. 2, (Summer 2017): 99 – 110.