M1840 Saber Spine Mark

[Jim McDougall]

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]

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

[Hotspur]

I am not familiar with (don't own) Albaugh's work, aside from brief passages posted by others. Is this a quote from the 1960s? I do consider a lot of the old work of others (such as Peterson) as bibles but these are sometimes revised to correct assumptions and update information. In this particular quest of a sword's information, some of those very basic precepts still hold true.

Yes, it could have been etched at any time. There is a problem with the etching because of how the name reads when compared to history. Could a well meaning organization screw that up in a reunion effort? Sure it could but first we have to find the presentation of the sword and more specifically presentation to the person assumed. Why a cavalry sword for an Infantry officer would be another boggle.

My last spurt of reading regarding this was to find mention of the slogan itself "Carry The Crater" and why any would etch that without some common reference of its use. If my sword, yes, I would be going to the trouble to pursue a good diary and bio for the name and events. Specifically a presentation to him and when that occured. Not so easy at times.

One of my favorite lines from researcher Bernard Levine is the comments of "Look at the mark. Look at how the mark was made. Ignore what the mark may say (spell out)". With this sword being discussed, that is fairly sage insight but once determined how, the why of follows on its heels. To me, the attribution with a named sword is then the curiosity of why bother to etch a name at all if not supplied with ample storytelling (provenance, if true) behind it?

Attached is a sword Albaugh would love to pull apart in the passage quoted above. These attached really did have me wondering for a few minutes but then plonked them in the "remember this" file.

Cheers

GC

[Jeff D]

Hi Glen,

The first edition was published 1963, my edition with this addendum was published 1979. In your photo's is the top saber the same as the lower one, the scabbard looks different.

Jeff

[Hotspur]

Hi Jeff,

I'll have to look at my folder again and it may have been another artillery sword from the same source. One is showing the scabbard with the throat removed. Otoh, it may be a picture with the non-historical brass throat lumped in with those files. I know the fellow was selling more than one with brass retrofits. Someday I'll figure out how to show the thumbnails in folders automatically while browsing instead of just the names. Folder preference settings somewhere got confused between drives.

It was the etch itself that really might be of interest.

Cheers

GC

[celtan]

Hi Guys,

There have a lot of interesting contacts regarding our sword. I will let everyone know the most recent info as soon as I have time to wind down and write.

Also, just got the Photographic Supplement to my Albaugh's. Nice reading!

Best

M