USMC 1850 Civil War Officer's Sword, Regulations of 1859

[kanemono]

Here is a Civil War USMC 1850 Officers Sword. In 1859 the Marine Corps Officers were ordered to abandon their distinctive swords in favor of the model 1850 foot officers' sword then worn by the infantry. This sword is made by W. H. Horstmann & Sons Philadelphia, and has USMC etched into the blade. This sword has the Horstmann French Infantry Officer's Model 1821 hilt. These hilts were cast by Horstmann and used on a number of their pre-Civil War and Civil War swords.

[SARGE]

The Civil War period USMC Officer sword was supposed to be, by regulations, the then standard US Model 1850 Foot Officer sword with a USMC etched blade. This sword appears to have the French Foot Officer hilt with an open guard and a scabbard for the US Model 1850 Staff & Field Officer sword. The scabbard also appears to be too long for the sword blade and does not appear to be Horstmann made from what I can see.

[Jack's Son]

For we non-sword guys, this is a rare sword? I like it, but I also want to appreciate its place in history.

[kanemono]

I did some research in John H. Thillmann's "Civil War Army Swords" and the scabbard is a style Horstmann used for their swords. The French Infantry Officers' Model 1821 hilt was also commonly used on 1850 infantry officers swords so regulations were not followed closely. I am not disagreeing with anything you said, just adding to your comments. I have seen two Civil War Marine Officer's Swords and both of their hilts were different from each other and different from this sword. I am trying to find as much information on this sword as possible. Thanks for the input.

Dick

[SARGE]

Dick,

 

Yes, the scabbard is certainly a style made by Horstmann but it is the regulation scabbard for a higher rank Staff & Field Officer sword rather than the regulation scabbard for a lower rank Foot Officer. Horstmann assembled many swords from various parts as well as made their own distinctive fittings. So, I was saying that the scabbard is not one that is normally associated with the "typical" Horstmann made product but could have been assembled from parts by them. In the sword trade most "makers" or "dealers" produced swords from the "parts is parts" philosophy and Horstmann is a good example of using various suppliers for their products.

 

Horstmann certainly sold this style of French sword in both Officer and NCO configurations (different scabbards). Here is a Horstmann of Phil pre-war example of this Frenchy style of sword that one will run across from time to time.

[SARGE]

A closeup view of the hilt showing the difference in the guard. This particular sword has a die stamped Horstmann marking on an unetched blade. The plain scabbard shows traces of old silver paint that is a sure sign of having hung in a GAR hall at one time or another. So, this one was certainly used in the US Civil War but has no USMC connection.

[kanemono]

Hi Sarge,

Thanks for the information. I have been doing some more research on USMC swords. The 1859 USMC regulations call for a leather scabbard with brass fittings, also, naval officer swords of the period had leather scabbards with brass fittings. Since most Marine officers served at sea and salt water and air were very corrosive to steel and iron, a steel scabbard like the one on my sword would not be appropriate. I also read that Marine officers of the period were the lowest paid in the US military and that their uniforms were the most expensive of any branch. My guess is that the French hilt on my sword was Horstmann's plainest and least expensive of the hilts that could be ordered. The hilt on this sword seems to have the original peening of the tang onto the pommel and the original leather between the hilt and blade. Any other thoughts would be helpful.

Dick

[Patriot12]

Great information.

[vette]

Nice sword Patriot12. Sarge, your sword has dents at the scabbard bottom. I was told that dents were put there to cut down rattle in combat. Makes sense to me. I am going to post some very interesting information I have found about a sword I have. It will be a follow up on another thread.

[kanemono]

I asked one of the largest dealers of Civil War swords this past weekend to look at my USMC sword and found out some interesting information that I would like to pass along. Although everything about the sword is Civil War and Horstmann, the sword's use dates from the 1870's. First... The scabbard is for the early 1850 Infantry Officer's sword. The early swords had a 1/4" wider blade than the Civil War swords (the scabbard by itself is worth three times the value of the sword). The blade is a Horstmann Civil War Infantry Officers’ blade that was re-etched after the Civil War in the,1870's, with USMC. The hilt was manufactured before and during the Civil War by Horstmann and was mounted on later swords to get rid of Civil War stock. The hilt and blade together were probably a special order by a Marine with a little extra money. The sword is not what I thought it was but it was a great learning experience. Thanks to everyone for their input. That is how we learn.

Dick

[Northstar]

I have what I believe to be a Civil War era USMC Foot Officer's Sword. There seem to be lots of different opinions about when the sword I have was made. I would like to send some photos and get expert onpinions about its provenance. I have quite a number of photos but I fear they are all too big. I can try shrinking them though I don't know what that does to the quality.

[Horseclover]

I have what I believe to be a Civil War era USMC Foot Officer's Sword. There seem to be lots of different opinions about when the sword I have was made. I would like to send some photos and get expert onpinions about its provenance. I have quite a number of photos but I fear they are all too big. I can try shrinking them though I don't know what that does to the quality.

Try using this utility. I came across it in another thread and it works wonderfully. If they are extra large, just add as many posts as it takes.

http://ben-major.co.uk/tools/usmf-resize.php

 

[Northstar]

Try using this utility. I came across it in another thread and it works wonderfully. If they are extra large, just add as many posts as it takes.

http://ben-major.co.uk/tools/usmf-resize.php

 

 

This utility downsized photos (I suppose) and then either opens them or saves them to something called Windows Picture Viewer. I can browse to other locations, none of which are what I want and none of which work. I tried using the utility first on my home computer running XP pro pack 3 and then emailed all my photos to myself to try my office computer which is Windows 7. Same story. In other words I find this utility useless.

Can you provide some guidance? Maybe where to look for the photos? Or maybe how to get the downsized photos to somewhere I want?

Many thanks in advance.

 

[reschenk]

I’d like to resurrect this old thread to hopefully generate some discussion of the M1859 Marine saber. There seems to be a lot of confusion as well as mis-information among the collector community regarding Marine swords, especially the M1859. Much of this is reflected in the discussion above.

 

Let me first summarize what I believe is known about the M1859. Most of this is drawn from Charles Cureton 2006 article Early Marine Swords in the Bulletin of the ASOAC and his 2009 book with David Sullivan on USMC CW Uniforms, and also from the USMC museum and its journal “Fortitudine”. In 1859 both Marine officers and sergeants were directed to replace their old swords with the M1850 Army foot officer’s sword. The sergeants’ sword differed from the officers’ in a number of details:

- The hilt and scabbard mounts of the officers’ swords were gilt; the sergeants’’ were brass

- The grip of the officers’ sword was shagreen; the sergeants’ was leather

- The officers’ scabbard had three mounts with two carrying rings; the NCO scabbard had two mounts with a frog stud.

- The blade of the officers’ sword was etched; the sergeants’ was blank.

 

Photos of the M1859 Sergeant sword without etching:

 

 

In 1875 there was another major change in USMC uniform regulations. Officers were again authorized to wear the distinctive mameluke-style sword similar to the M1826 sword worn prior to 1859, and sergeants were to continue to use the M1859 sword, but the blades were to be etched with the letters “U.S.M.C.”. (Some authorities say generic etching was authorized for sergeants’ blades in 1872, but not the distinctive “U.S.M.C.”.) Photos:

 

 

At some point after 1875, senior staff NCOs were authorized to wear swords fitted with carrying rings, for attachment to sword belt slings, as opposed to traditional attachment by a stud in a sliding frog; this practice ceased with WWII.

 

In 1918 there was another change in uniform regulations which reduced the blade width to its current narrow dimensions and the current etching design including the words “United States Marines”.

 

Cureton and others contend there were no distinctive markings on the M1859 Officers sword, and that the only way one can be distinguished from an Army sword is if there is an inscription or other provenance linking the sword to a particular marine. I believe this is probably correct. I have never seen a USMC-marked M1859 sword which would meet the specifications for officer wear during the period 1859-1875, i.e. gilt hilt and mounts, shagreen grips, and etched blade. Those swords we seen marketed as CW USMC officer’s swords all seem to have plain leather grips and appear to be post-1875 staff NCO swords. If any members have seen a M1859 sword which is configured for officer use, I would love to hear about it.

 

As for the sword under discussion in this thread, it appears to be a composite piece made with a M1821 French infantry-style hilt, a post-1875 USMC M1859 sergeant’s blade, and a M1850 S&F scabbard. When and for whom this was made is unknown, but it certainly wasn’t for a USMC Officer. Even if the etching were somehow pre-1875, during the CW period, the Marines were serious about the M1859 uniform standards and would not have accepted a sword so out of line with the regulations. (There are photos, however, showing former Commandant Henderson’s nephew wearing his uncle’s M1826 mameluke post-1859.) Most of the non-regulation Army swords were used by militia/volunteer units. There were, of course, no marine militia units. It could not have been made for a post-1875 USMC officer since by then they had returned to the traditional mameluke.

 

 

[Tim]

These links to www.swordforum.com may help. The forum specializes in swords.

 

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?107728-The-last-USMC-NCO-sword&highlight=last+USMC+NCO

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?116323-M1859-USMC-Sword&highlight=last+USMC+NCO

[reschenk]

In post #9 to the SFI thread Tim referenced in his note above, Tim shows a nice example of the USMC NCO sword from the period 1872-1875, the period between the two swords pictured in my original post above. As noted, the original M1859 NCO swords had plain unetched blades; in 1872, decorated blades were authorized, and in 1875 etching with "USMC" became mandatory. None of these early NCO swords are exactly common, but I believe Tim's is probably the rarest variety since it was current for such a short period. Would love to have it!

 

URL to thread: http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?107728-The-last-USMC-NCO-sword&highlight=last+USMC+NCO