THE DOUBLEBAG KNAPSACK, very faulty but an assistance on the march.

When? When? When? At what point in history is a particular piece of reproduction equipment correct to use? In the matter of knapsacks, specifically the variety called the “doublebag” this is a question of tremendous concern among participants in historic re-enactments of the American Civil War.

Let us look at some available evidence, albeit brief, yet compelling. It is evident from extant examples that there are two basic varieties of this knapsack. One predates the war and in the author’s collection this is represented by a specimen with the date 1854 painted on the outer flap. Made from pre-painted oil cloth this pack is entirely machine sewn. In point of fact it appears that many early-war knapsacks were not only machine sewn but made from a variety of materials at hand. (1)

Walker and Robson, a Peoria, Illinois based firm which involved itself in the production of knapsacks in 1861 solicited the donation of old Wide Awake capes which they cut up and sewed into knapsacks by machine.(2) This practice and the localized efforts in production accounts of the variations in construction and material. Some typical features of early war knapsacks are machine sewn, welted seams necessitated from using pre-painted oil cloth. A variety of cotton cloth is used in the bodies of the knapsacks. The shoulder straps are usually found with square ends and the studs used to connect to the armpit and j-hook straps are left uncovered. The leather strapping is sewn to these knapsacks in a variety of ways ranging from combinations of hand and machine sewing to total machine sewing. Another , almost standard, feature, is the use of twill tape ties on a v-pocket and flap that is noticeably smaller than the war time knapsacks.(3)

While the individual states and local entities were furnishing their newly raised units with these variegated pieces of equipment it is apparent that the federal government quartermasters were approaching the knapsack supply problem with an agenda of their own. Today we often see government contract knapsacks because thousands were surplus at the end of the war. Some are even dated with the contract years 1864 and 1865. Many examples are undated since contract marking was not required until after July 1862. (4) However the question comes to mind: Does the design itself predate 1864? Most assuredly yes. The authority for such a statement is as fascinating as the war itself.

These war-time contract knapsacks are typically found made from a linen canvas referred to as Russia sheeting. Why the significant change from the cotton material to the linen flax? “The effect of the late Civil War was to stop the production of cotton almost altogether for four years.” (5) The availability of cotton canvas and drilling was drastically curtailed by this dramatic drop in cotton production occasioned by the war. Cotton production in 1861 amounted to 3,126,867 bales yet in 1862 only 12,661 bales

were produced (6) The substitution of flax and flax mixed with imported cotton from Egypt, India and Brazil was a necessity for the livelihood of northern cotton mills.(7)

(2)

(Page 1)

The shortage of cotton and the substitution of linen flax in 1862 coincides with the photographic evidence of the introduction of a standardized government contract knapsack in that year. In addition to the use of linen other typical identifying features of this knapsack include shoulder straps with scalloped ends and the covering of the shoulder strap studs with a round leather washer. These features become apparent in photographs of soldiers that are documented to have been made in 1862. As such, it is compelling evidence and the cases in point are sufficient to garner a conviction from the most astute juror.

Cases in point include the numerous photos of the 22d New York State Militia made at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia) in 1862. These images are so widely published it is hardly necessary to refer the reader to a source. However pages 40, 41, and 88 of They Who Fought There by Bell I. Wiley and Hirst D. Milhollen should be readily available to most. The photographic portrait of Corporal William A Rand, Company K, Sixteenth New Hampshire Volunteers, as published on the back cover of the November 1976 issue of Civil War Times Illustrated shows a completely equipped soldier in wonderful detail. As with the previously mentioned photos , under magnification the details of the knapsacks are revealed in stark reality. The covered shoulder strap studs and a the scalloped ends of the shoulder straps are readily apparent. Rand’s unit was organized in October 1862 and served through August 1863 seeing service predominantly in the Gulf Department. As Rand’s photograph exhibits an overcoat strapped atop his knapsack we are led to believe that the photo was made closer to enlistment than mustering out.

Corporal William A. Rand

Co. K 16th New Hampshire Volunteers

November 1976 issue

Civil War Times Illustrated

(Page 2)

While this is in no way a definitive study of knapsacks it does establish some important points. First the evidence of a non-typical early war knapsack with varied construction features. These features most notably being manufacture by machine of pre-painted cotton oil cloth with welted seams, squared end shoulder straps with exposed studs and twill tape ties on the V-pocket and flaps with noticeably smaller dimensions from later packs. Second the evidence unequivocally points to the adoption of a standardized pattern of knapsack in 1862, made of linen canvas with flat-felled seams, painted after construction, and with scalloped end shoulder straps with covered studs. Further, known and published and dated photographs corroborate that these knapsacks were issued and in use during 1862.

In actual use the knapsack was viewed as “very faulty” yet “an assistance on the march.” Lt Colonel William G. LeDuc, chief quartermaster of the Eleventh Army Corps felt that there was “ . . . nothing better than the knapsacks.” Le Duc also felt that if not loaded with excess baggage the soldiers could transport eight days rations in knapsacks. He did feel that it was essential that the men be drilled daily with the knapsack to prevent their shoulders from being worn raw.(8)

In active campaigning during May 1863 the Eleventh Corps lost approximately 6,009 knapsacks. Lt Colonel C.W. Tolles of the Sixth Army Corps reported a total loss of 8,787 knapsacks for the same period. In fact for the entire Army of the Potomac the loss of knapsacks during the active campaign in May 1863 amounted to a staggering twenty-five percent. Some loss was attributed to casualties yet the main culprit was the habit of throwing off knapsacks prior to going into combat. (9)

Due to the attrition in combat it was certainly necessary to keep a steady supply of knapsacks by the thousands going forward. In re-enactments, the use of the early war style of knapsack would be certainly limited to just that; early war. As Leander Stillwell, a soldier of the 61st Illinois Infantry recalled when his unit was caught up in the rebel onslaught in of the Battle of Shiloh, “I ran down our company street, and in passing the big Sibley tent of our mess I thought of my knapsack with all my traps and belongings, including that precious little packet of letters from home. I said to myself, I will save my knapsack anyhow; but one quick backward glance over my left shoulder made me change my mind, and I went on. I never saw my knapsack or any of its contents afterwards.” (10)

(Page 3)

NOTES

1. Original specimen in author’s collection. Other specimens in public and private collections.

2. Peoria Daily Transcript page 1 column 4, April 24 1861. For the solicitation of Wide-Awake capes see The Peoria Daily Union p.2, col.1, April 25, 1861.

3. Original specimen in author’s collection. Published photos of similar specimens appear in Time Life’s Echo’s of Glory series.

4. Johnson, Paul; Civil War Cartridge Boxes of the Union Infantryman pp181-183.

5. Bolles, Albert, Industrial History of the United States, Norwich Connecticut, Cincinnati, Ohio, Peoria, Illinois, 1879, pp. 56-57.

6. Ibid .

7. Ibid. p. 416.

8. Official Records Vol. 25, pt. 2, p. 555

9. Ibid.pp.545-546.

10.Stillwell, Leander, The Story of a Common Soldier, Erie, Kansas, 1916, p. 46.

( Page 4)