M1840 Saber Spine Mark

celtan · 21st December 2009, 11:59 PM

Hi G and Jim,

I remember asking, but can't find the actual post, about captured swords and etching. Was it normal to have a captured sword etched with names etc... and presented as a trophy? I still have no idea of the maker of this sword.

Best

M

Jim McDougall · 23rd December 2009, 11:04 PM

Hi Manolo,
In history there are of course instances of swords being captured and being presented as trophies, and the captured crusader swords which ended up in Alexandria, then Constantinople were engraved with Islamic inscriptions and held as trophies in these armouries.
The Russians were well known for using captured blades as awards for gallantry to thier officers, and these were often profusely etched or engraved.
In North America, I am not aware of this affectation being used with swords, although certainly swords were indeed captured at times. I recall research on a sword which belonged to Custer and was said to have been taken from a Confederate officer in combat in the Civil War. The sword had a huge blade with the 'Spanish motto' and was clearly a Mexican blade. I discovered later that the sword was actually 'given' to Custer by one of his officers who had taken the sword in battle, and knew Custer collected swords, so he gave to him out of respect.
Other swords were taken in battle from Confederates and many were swords that had been taken by them in turn in battle during the Mexican war.
None of these were ever afforded any additional engraving or salutations, simply used as is.

While the sword was never used as much in combat during the Civil War as it may be presumed, it did serve well in almost a symbolic or metaphoric sense.
The most profound example of this was at Appomattox when General Robert E. Lee surrendered to President Abraham Lincoln. Out of his deep respect for this brilliant commander, Lincoln refused to take his sword in the traditional gesture of surrender, and ordered that Confederate officers were to be allowed to keep thier sidearms in expanding that respect. It was one of the most deeply moving occurrences to me of this war as this tragic episode of American history ended.

I would however note that after the Civil War, and with the fluorishing of fraternal organizations, many militarily based, a great deal of regalia was produced. This might well have included swords that were either captured or used in significant events or by individuals preserving thier legacies. I think one of the instances of these kinds of uses were in Masonic lodges, where of course the Tylers sword was of key importance. Although the regalia outfitters produced these specifically, it does seem there were many cases were an authentically 'used' sword with historical provenance was donated for the purpose.

My thoughts,

All the best,
Jim

Hotspur · 25th December 2009, 02:46 AM

Quote:

The most profound example of this was at Appomattox when General Robert E. Lee surrendered to President Abraham Lincoln. Out of his deep respect for this brilliant commander, Lincoln refused to take his sword in the traditional gesture of surrender, and ordered that Confederate officers were to be allowed to keep thier sidearms in expanding that respect. It was one of the most deeply moving occurrences to me of this war as this tragic episode of American history ended

Umm, no Jim. Grant included/added a sentence to the paperwork regarding the allowance to let officers retain their sidearms. The sword was never ceremoniously offered by Lee and then refused by Grant (receiving and overseeing the surrender). There may be different versions of that account.

Interestingly, I do have a copy of a letter from a Union officer writing home the day of the surrender. He was bemoaning to his wife that he had the duty that day (A Sunday) and thanking her for the spectacles sent. It was apparently moments before news would reach the west. A letter maybe never sent. It is here in my family papers somewhere and I'm not remembering specifics well. Here he is. No direct relation here but associated through my dad's second wife first husband (his paternal family tree). He is evidentially writing at the very moment the surrender is taking place. I do hope the original (that did surface in turning dad's house inside out) was forwarded to other descendants of that family but another in the process was a bit lax in following through. I did get a copy of it though, on Vicksburg headquarters stationary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Warnock

As to etching, it isn't such a chore, nor something that couldn't have happened at any time. I bumped into some reunion information for the veterans associated with that but have not delved deeply into the Crater episode. An interesting search for someone to undertake, I'm sure. I'm having problems remembering what it was I was taking off to a young descendant for Christmas.

Ho ho ho

Glen

Jim McDougall · 25th December 2009, 03:00 PM

Hi Glen,
Thanks for correcting that, it seems my history wires get crossed sometimes, especially in this area on Civil War history, so getting it right is very much appreciated to keep the record straight. Still, the point was that as an important gesture, these officers were to keep thier swords.

Your outstanding comprehension on U.S. history and weapons has always been clear in your compelling posts through the years, and as I have noted many times, its great to have them here!! Thank you.

BTW, Ho Ho Ho!! yourself

Merry Christmas morning!!
All the best,
Jim

celtan · 26th December 2009, 03:18 PM

Hi Guys,

Once again, Season's Greetings to y'all.

I will let you know anything else I find regarding this sword, it is an interesting subject to research. " ) . Jim knows how determined I become when I get a scent of the prey...

Jim, are you actually saying that swords were _never_ used as an offensive weapon during the CW..?

So Glen, from your perspective I get that 1. No captured swords were etched and presented as trophies 2. This might be a post CW sword presented during a post-war Veteran's Reunion. 3. Alternatively, it could also be a CW presentation sword, or (my contribution to our "what ifs" ) perhaps 4. even could be Capt. Wallace's own war-time sword, etched after the events of the Crater, "to preserve the legacy".

Mind you, I'm jot particularly converse with post-CW events in the South. I imagine conditions for the defeated were not particularly pleasant. MY knowledge is limited to the movie "The Outlaw Jesse Wales" and some comments made by South-American

friends regarding "carpetbaggers" and "Federal insidiousness".

Would it be logical to assume that Confederate Veterans Reunions were not something to sprout in the faces of the "invading Northerners"? I can't imagine a Wehrmacht Veterans reunion in 1950 Germany, or the presentation of a sword to Michael Wittman, or Erich Hartmann, on account of their wartime actions, no matter how courageous they might have been.

And from the little I know, Civil Wars consistently leave behind a far greater deal of resentment and downright animosity than the "regular" kind. Wouldn't CSA Veteran reunions be effectively prohibited by the Victors..?

Best regards

Manuel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Hi Glen,
Thanks for correcting that, it seems my history wires get crossed sometimes, especially in this area on Civil War history, so getting it right is very much appreciated to keep the record straight. Still, the point was that as an important gesture, these officers were to keep thier swords.

Your outstanding comprehension on U.S. history and weapons has always been clear in your compelling posts through the years, and as I have noted many times, its great to have them here!! Thank you.

BTW, Ho Ho Ho!! yourself

Merry Christmas morning!!
All the best,
Jim

Jim McDougall · 26th December 2009, 05:31 PM

Hi Manuel,
You are indeed relentless on the search for accuracy and authenticity in studying these weapons, which is an outstanding trait that benefits us all as we join together in sharing the learning.

I would clarify my statements on the use of the sword during the Civil War, in which I noted that the sword was not used 'as much' as often presumed, during the Civil War. One of the key indicators of this situation was that sword blades were often nearly blunt, unsharpened, or not maintained if they were. In a reference on the medical aspects of the war it was noted that there were remarkably few records of any sword cuts among the wounded, and that instances of injuries caused by swords were usually blunt force trauma.
One of the reasons the most used sword patterns by the Union, the M1840, was called the 'old wristbreaker' was it was admittedly a heavy weapon, but mostly the use of it was not well instilled in the men. Sword drill was mostly a superficial exercise, and the sword itself considered more of an encumbrance endured mostly at the behest of military tradition. That in itself was what I meant when noting the swords more symbolic presence, but naturally, in the heat of combat, anything can become a weapon, even an dull sword.

As always, I look for, and appreciate, opposing views, and look forward to supported accounts of actual and effective use of sabres in the Civil War, which certainly might have happened incidentally. My comments have been placed in a much broader sense, and from generally held opinion.

With regard to the etching of sword blades, whether captured, or issued, or even associated in some way with an event or individual in the Civil War, many swords undoubtedly were afforded this decorative motif commemoratively after the war.
As I noted, while the war ended on the battlefield, in the country and its people, especially in political essence and culturally, it still prevails in degree and virtually as an open wound. There were many versions of military based fraternal organizations, the GAR (Grand Army of the Republic),et al. There were many suborganizational groups that were offshoots of these various entities, and of course, the most prevalent fraternal society of all, the Freemasons, which had already stood for many years, burgeoned in membership.

It was indeed a country torn asunder by the strife of the war, and its aftermath led to the wild encroachment of the 'carpetbaggers' with the frontiers full of 'lost' ex soldiers disillusioned and who had become wandering victims of this tragic episode of our history.
As I had mentioned, living in Nashville, Tennessee for nearly ten years was quite an eye opening experience. Here, the entire area was of course 'occupied' during most of the war by the Union forces, so the animosity can be well imagined. Its intensity is still present in many areas among the population of distinct ancestry there, and Southern Pride prevails.

There were certainly fraternal groups that focused on the gallantry and heroism of the Confederate forces, and as I mentioned, thier monuments and cemeteries are privately maintained. While there are no provisions federally for these, I am not aware that there were restrictions against veterans groups. In the assemblage of these military brotherhoods, their reunions are not emplaced to celebrate the horrors of war, but contrarily to celebrate the brotherhood among themselves forever bonded in those events. It is even more deeply to honor and respect heroism and gallantry, to remember those who fell, and based in respect.
I would imagine that any concerns or restrictions would obviously be placed on any subversive groups whose existance was based on hatred or terrorism, but far deeper treatment on history would be needed to elaborate in detail.

Despite animosity that of course will probably always dormantly be present (with obvious exceptions in degree

I think that for the most part the sense of being American prevails.
Naturally there is wide berth for argument here, and I would ask to not reopen the 'Civil War' here

and keep the focus on following that trail on the history of this outstanding sabre. Its true story deserves to be known.

All the best,
Jim

Jeff D · 26th December 2009, 06:42 PM

Interesting thread Gentlemen, but, there is a very large bull elephant in the room. Since we are here to learn I will place a quote from William A. Albaugh III 's A Photographic Supplement of Confederate Swords In his Addendum Preface;
' In the past, those with a strong case of Dishonesty would take an artillery saber (with single fuller) attach the guard assembly from a yankee foot officer's sword, and lo and behold, this ugly hybrid became in the eyes of the uninitiated - a Confederate sword! The stamping of the three magic letters "C.S.A." removed any vestige of doubt.
When the fraternity grew wary of such trickery, the faker simply turned to some artist friend to etch the blade with fantastically pro-Confederate designs. These included not one, but several "C.S.A.'s", southern flags and mottos such as "Death to all Yankees.."
This type of quackery still persists and in some cases is quite accomplished, particularly when a genuine Confederate sword supplies the basic ingredient.'

All the Best
Jeff

21st December 2009, 11:59 PM	#1
celtan Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: PR, USA Posts: 679	Hi G and Jim, I remember asking, but can't find the actual post, about captured swords and etching. Was it normal to have a captured sword etched with names etc... and presented as a trophy? I still have no idea of the maker of this sword. Best M

23rd December 2009, 11:04 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,284	Hi Manolo, In history there are of course instances of swords being captured and being presented as trophies, and the captured crusader swords which ended up in Alexandria, then Constantinople were engraved with Islamic inscriptions and held as trophies in these armouries. The Russians were well known for using captured blades as awards for gallantry to thier officers, and these were often profusely etched or engraved. In North America, I am not aware of this affectation being used with swords, although certainly swords were indeed captured at times. I recall research on a sword which belonged to Custer and was said to have been taken from a Confederate officer in combat in the Civil War. The sword had a huge blade with the 'Spanish motto' and was clearly a Mexican blade. I discovered later that the sword was actually 'given' to Custer by one of his officers who had taken the sword in battle, and knew Custer collected swords, so he gave to him out of respect. Other swords were taken in battle from Confederates and many were swords that had been taken by them in turn in battle during the Mexican war. None of these were ever afforded any additional engraving or salutations, simply used as is. While the sword was never used as much in combat during the Civil War as it may be presumed, it did serve well in almost a symbolic or metaphoric sense. The most profound example of this was at Appomattox when General Robert E. Lee surrendered to President Abraham Lincoln. Out of his deep respect for this brilliant commander, Lincoln refused to take his sword in the traditional gesture of surrender, and ordered that Confederate officers were to be allowed to keep thier sidearms in expanding that respect. It was one of the most deeply moving occurrences to me of this war as this tragic episode of American history ended. I would however note that after the Civil War, and with the fluorishing of fraternal organizations, many militarily based, a great deal of regalia was produced. This might well have included swords that were either captured or used in significant events or by individuals preserving thier legacies. I think one of the instances of these kinds of uses were in Masonic lodges, where of course the Tylers sword was of key importance. Although the regalia outfitters produced these specifically, it does seem there were many cases were an authentically 'used' sword with historical provenance was donated for the purpose. My thoughts, All the best, Jim

25th December 2009, 03:00 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,284	Hi Glen, Thanks for correcting that, it seems my history wires get crossed sometimes, especially in this area on Civil War history, so getting it right is very much appreciated to keep the record straight. Still, the point was that as an important gesture, these officers were to keep thier swords. Your outstanding comprehension on U.S. history and weapons has always been clear in your compelling posts through the years, and as I have noted many times, its great to have them here!! Thank you. BTW, Ho Ho Ho!! yourself Merry Christmas morning!! All the best, Jim

26th December 2009, 05:31 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,284	Hi Manuel, You are indeed relentless on the search for accuracy and authenticity in studying these weapons, which is an outstanding trait that benefits us all as we join together in sharing the learning. I would clarify my statements on the use of the sword during the Civil War, in which I noted that the sword was not used 'as much' as often presumed, during the Civil War. One of the key indicators of this situation was that sword blades were often nearly blunt, unsharpened, or not maintained if they were. In a reference on the medical aspects of the war it was noted that there were remarkably few records of any sword cuts among the wounded, and that instances of injuries caused by swords were usually blunt force trauma. One of the reasons the most used sword patterns by the Union, the M1840, was called the 'old wristbreaker' was it was admittedly a heavy weapon, but mostly the use of it was not well instilled in the men. Sword drill was mostly a superficial exercise, and the sword itself considered more of an encumbrance endured mostly at the behest of military tradition. That in itself was what I meant when noting the swords more symbolic presence, but naturally, in the heat of combat, anything can become a weapon, even an dull sword. As always, I look for, and appreciate, opposing views, and look forward to supported accounts of actual and effective use of sabres in the Civil War, which certainly might have happened incidentally. My comments have been placed in a much broader sense, and from generally held opinion. With regard to the etching of sword blades, whether captured, or issued, or even associated in some way with an event or individual in the Civil War, many swords undoubtedly were afforded this decorative motif commemoratively after the war. As I noted, while the war ended on the battlefield, in the country and its people, especially in political essence and culturally, it still prevails in degree and virtually as an open wound. There were many versions of military based fraternal organizations, the GAR (Grand Army of the Republic),et al. There were many suborganizational groups that were offshoots of these various entities, and of course, the most prevalent fraternal society of all, the Freemasons, which had already stood for many years, burgeoned in membership. It was indeed a country torn asunder by the strife of the war, and its aftermath led to the wild encroachment of the 'carpetbaggers' with the frontiers full of 'lost' ex soldiers disillusioned and who had become wandering victims of this tragic episode of our history. As I had mentioned, living in Nashville, Tennessee for nearly ten years was quite an eye opening experience. Here, the entire area was of course 'occupied' during most of the war by the Union forces, so the animosity can be well imagined. Its intensity is still present in many areas among the population of distinct ancestry there, and Southern Pride prevails. There were certainly fraternal groups that focused on the gallantry and heroism of the Confederate forces, and as I mentioned, thier monuments and cemeteries are privately maintained. While there are no provisions federally for these, I am not aware that there were restrictions against veterans groups. In the assemblage of these military brotherhoods, their reunions are not emplaced to celebrate the horrors of war, but contrarily to celebrate the brotherhood among themselves forever bonded in those events. It is even more deeply to honor and respect heroism and gallantry, to remember those who fell, and based in respect. I would imagine that any concerns or restrictions would obviously be placed on any subversive groups whose existance was based on hatred or terrorism, but far deeper treatment on history would be needed to elaborate in detail. Despite animosity that of course will probably always dormantly be present (with obvious exceptions in degree I think that for the most part the sense of being American prevails. Naturally there is wide berth for argument here, and I would ask to not reopen the 'Civil War' here and keep the focus on following that trail on the history of this outstanding sabre. Its true story deserves to be known. All the best, Jim

26th December 2009, 06:42 PM	#7
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Interesting thread Gentlemen, but, there is a very large bull elephant in the room. Since we are here to learn I will place a quote from William A. Albaugh III 's A Photographic Supplement of Confederate Swords In his Addendum Preface; ' In the past, those with a strong case of Dishonesty would take an artillery saber (with single fuller) attach the guard assembly from a yankee foot officer's sword, and lo and behold, this ugly hybrid became in the eyes of the uninitiated - a Confederate sword! The stamping of the three magic letters "C.S.A." removed any vestige of doubt. When the fraternity grew wary of such trickery, the faker simply turned to some artist friend to etch the blade with fantastically pro-Confederate designs. These included not one, but several "C.S.A.'s", southern flags and mottos such as "Death to all Yankees.." This type of quackery still persists and in some cases is quite accomplished, particularly when a genuine Confederate sword supplies the basic ingredient.' All the Best Jeff