What uniforms would typically depict an Army of Tennessee soldier throughout the war?

Up until the spring of 1862, Army of Tennessee soldiers would, like their eastern cousins, have made a motley appearance. The chances of any unit looking like its fellow, or perhaps the chance of each company looking the same, would have been highly unlikely. At this point, the commutation system would have been in force, and what ever was considered martial would have been attractive to soldiers and officers commanding units. The raising of look-alike European units was all the rage. Every effort would have been attempted to get an overall look, but, as photographs show, this was not universally successful.

By the middle of summer, the first of the Georgia depot material would have made it's appearance. By far the most common jacket in the Army of Tennessee was the Columbus Depot. A jacket constructed of grey jeancloth with blue kersey or flannel trim on the collar and cuffs. It was made in two variations. The first had a five or six button front, two interior pockets, with an osnaburg lining. The second had a six or seven button front, one interior pocket, and one exterior pocket on the left breast. To give size of the operation at Columbus Depot, 263,922 jackets were produced from the middle of 1862, until the 20th May 1864. Production did not cease until April 1865. Other depots also produced jackets of the Columbus style.

One of those producing this jacket was Atlanta. In early 1864 the depot produced it's own pattern, a poor quality salt and pepper, or grey jeancloth with a unique style of it's own. It had the front panel cut so that right covers the left. It also had a six-button front, and was issued with wooden buttons. Troops may have put more martial style ones on their place. A variation on this had a single belt loop on the left. Production at Atlanta was huge. It produced 130.000 of these jackets alone in 1863.

Athens depot was setup after the Kentucky campaign of 1862. It produced jackets made from material captured there. The first pattern may have been similar to the Columbus style. It had produced 10,000 by July 1863.

Columbus Depot PatternAtlanta Depot Pattern

The Department of Alabama produced a jacket similar to the Columbus Depot one, possibly in either Columbus, Mississippi, or in Demopolis, Alabama. Although the style was reminiscent of the Columbus Depot, it had a five-button jacket with an exterior pocket, which was produced on left of right, but, had only collar trim of dark blue jeancloth. There was also a belt loop variation in existence. Another Alabama jacket, this time called the Alabama Depot was produced, possibly in Mobile or Montgomery, again with six or seven button front, a distinctive collar, and an exterior pocket. This type had a slant pocket on the left breast.

North Carolina was a widely used jacket. As North Carolina troops saw action on both the eastern and western fronts. it is perhaps one of the only ones that may have been universally issued to both Armies. The jackets used by the Army of Tennessee were of jeancloth, with again the standard osnaburg lining, with a six-button front. It was similar to the Columbus, but slightly shorter in the body. The Army of Tennessee had these issued at Dalton, Georgia, in the winter of 1863/64, and again at Palmetto, Georgia, in September 1864.

Alabama Depot PatternNorth Carolina Depot Pattern

One further jacket that may have crossed the divide between the two armies was the Peter Tait jacket. Issued in very small quantities in late 1864, in particular around the blockade ports, it was purportedly issued to both armies. A cadet grey kersey, eight button front jacket, completely machine made, except for the buttonholes, with a linen lining.

Peter Tait Jacket
Conclusion then on an Army of Tennessee 1863 impression

The majority of any unit should, with out a shadow of a doubt be clothed in a jeancloth, Columbus Depot style jacket. Variations on this, say, of the Alabama or North Carolina, style (different external pockets, number of buttons etc.) may be added. With any unit, other than a Kentucky one, there may have been a smattering of the earlier style jackets. This would be men that had been in hospital, home on sick furlough, absent, in a desk job and perhaps missed an issue. Some could be wool, some could be home made with homespun jeancloth. It is about giving a rounded out appearance, not all the same, but not all different.

Arthur Freemantle mentions, in his description of Arkansas troops in the Army of Tennessee, "that the men were well clothed, without any attempt to uniformity in colour or cut, but nearly all were dressed in grey or brown coats and felt hats ". To give some idea to the size of the depot operation in the west, the Army of Tennessee received during the last six months of 1864, the following, 45,412 jackets, 102,864 pants, 102,558 shoes, plus 7,000 captured by Forrest. 27.900 blankets, 45,853 hats and caps, 61,860 cotton shirts, 108,937 drawers, and 55,560 pairs of socks.

There appears to have been no effort made by the western depot system, as far as I know, to produce an artillery man's jacket. It would appear that standard Columbus infantry jackets complete with blue trim, was issued to artillery. Some surviving ones have red sewn on at a later date, but not at the factory stage.

A Kentucky unit, (they were not called the Orphan Brigade for no reason), would have had to rely purely on the depot system. They would not have had the opportunity of getting things from home, and I would guess that if men did furlough home, they might not have been seen again. It is possible that a very small amount of earlier stuff may have been around, but not a lot.

Some of the clothing that one would not have seen in 1863. None of the men would have been issued with Atlanta style jackets, nor would any of the men have had any Richmond depot material. It is also arguable whether any Peter Tait style jackets (i.e. of a dark grey colour) should be in evidence. There are, what some historians have called, Tait buttons been found as far away as Texas that supposedly dated prior to 1865. For my view, as these buttons appear to be standard Isaac and Cambell roman 'I' type ones, finding the buttons does not always mean that a Tait jacket was ever attached to it.