---

The Confederate Bayonet

The most terrifying of weapons and the most personal of weapons, the bayonet was in use for over 200 years before the firing on Fort Sumter. Although infrequently called upon in the heat of battle during the War Between the States, the bayonet served many purposes.  In the following study, the evolution and history of the bayonet will be explored along with possible alternatives in the Confederate, Eastern Theatre impression.

Evolution of the Bayonet

The “socket” type bayonet, predominately in use during the War Between the States, was first fabricated during the late 17th century in France.  The French modified a 16th century Spanish invention attaching a blade to a firearm.  The French socket bayonet was;

During the late 17th and most of the 18th centuries bayonets were seen as the most dependable weapon of the infantry. Smoothbore, flintlock muskets were inaccurate at medium to long ranges. The time required to load and prime flintlocks, and the uncertainty that their charge would fire, should everything else work according to plan, rendered the popular weapon unreliable.  Marching shoulder to shoulder, armies from the American Revolution to the Napoleonic Wars to the Mexican War used the bayonet to turn the tide of battles.

As the mid-nineteenth century approached, the advent of the rifled musket and another innovation, the “minie” bullet, increased the effective range of the common musket to over 200 yards.  Also during this period, the paper cartridge replaced the ball, patch and powder and, percussion systems replaced the flint and flash pan.  The result, faster and more reliable rounds fired per minute.  Still, the bayonet exercise was in every military drill book and practiced to near exhaustion.

In 1860, the socket bayonet continued as a mainstay of each federal arsenal.  With slight modification from the early French version, the bayonet was revered by the last of the Napoleonic warriors.

Sources for the New Confederacy

The capture or annexing of the federal arsenals at Harper’s Ferry, Fayetteville and Macon in 1860 and 1861, netted the Confederacy minimal arms. The federal government had reduced stores of firearms, as secession inevitably approached. Militia units throughout the south, however, held large quantities of arms and equipage.  The problem?  Most of these muskets and accoutrements were obsolete.  The models 1816 and 1842 U.S., smoothbore muskets, some converted from flintlock to the percussion system, constituted the bulk of the inventory.  The model 1855 rifled musket and the model 1842 rifled musket were also in inventory in much smaller numbers.

Machinery captured at the arsenals did not include that for bayonet manufacturing. Bayonets in the hands of the arsenals and militias constituted the bulk of the inventory at the start of the war.

Returns of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Militia from September 30, 1860 (2) indicate the following:
 

This would indicate that bayonets were in fairly even supply with muskets.

Both the Union and Confederacy procured Enfield rifles from England, early in the war in significant numbers.  In reviewing correspondence in the Official Records, bayonets were ordered in similar quantities as muskets.

The United States was the great supplier of arms to the Confederacy, once hostilities began in earnest.  Many rebel soldiers sought to upgrade their .69 caliber smoothbore muskets to an Enfield or Springfield rifled musket, at the first opportunity:

Often with the capture of these arms, bayonets were not available.  In addition, the .69 caliber bayonets would not fit the procured muskets and became less than useless.

The Confederate States did produce their own bayonets.  These bayonets were made by two of the principal armories (Richmond and Fayetteville) as well as a small host of private contractors.  The “regulation” Confederate bayonet may be differentiated from the U.S. Models by its shape.  They were comparatively narrow in width and triangular in shape, without fluting of any sort.  These bayonets were made for the .58 and .69 caliber weapons as well as for the double barrel shotgun (a favorite of the cavalry as well as some early infantry units). The purpose of doing away with the fluting was to allow the bayonets to be manufactured more economically, with less waste.  In addition, the manufacturing time was reduced by not having to process the bayonets for fluting.  This allowed increased production, an important factor.  It should be noted that very few of these bayonets have survived.(4)

Where did they go?

As the war entered its third full year, the toll on arms and accoutrements was heavy:

Bayonets were, by far and away, the most deficient category.  There are number of reasons for the disparity of this deficiency:

The fact that bayonets were not retained in large numbers is further borne out in the reports of captured arms by Union troops:

Bayonets in this, as well as other reports of captured Confederate weapons, were seldom found in as great of numbers as rifles.

In observing the returns of causes of deaths and wounds, reported by the Union Army during the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House in 1864, where a significant amount of hand-to-hand fighting occurred, the number of wounds reported from bayonets is extremely low.  This attests to the fact that Confederates did not utilize the bayonets they had:

Over the years, relic hunters have found many bayonets.  As these items were distributed, they found uses as candle holders, digging implements, tent stakes, cooking utensils and, when attached to a rifle, shelter supports.  Often, they were left in camp as a campaign started, to be recovered over a hundred years later.

Improving our Impression

After searching through the main sutlers, both on the web and in catalogs, no regulation Confederate bayonets could be located.  Unmarked bayonets could be easily ground to the specifications of the regulation Confederate bayonet.  Such bayonets should be represented in any Confederate unit.(10)

Marked U.S. bayonets of the 1835 and 1855 models (for the .69 and .58 caliber muskets and rifles) are also quite appropriate.  Since the 47th Va. was issued 1842 model Harper’s Ferry muskets, these would do well in our early war impression. In addition, the 47th would have had ample opportunity to acquire the 1861 Springfield, as well as Enfield, rifles and their bayonets from the spoils of battle.

Often in reenacting, less is better.  The fact is that as many as 50% of our troops should not carry bayonets.  This is a difficult decision.  The bayonets play a role in our appearance during dress parade and sure make the stacking of arms a might easier.  As with many attempts to improve our authenticity, we must consider many factors.

Possibly this could be a subject for future discussion.

End Notes

(2) Reilly, Robert M. “American Socket Bayonets and Scabbards”. Lincoln, Rhode Island. 1990.

(3) O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXIV/2 [S# 37]MAY 19-JULY 4, 1863.--The Siege of Vicksburg,
               Miss.No. 87.--Report of Col. Ashbel Smith, Second Texas Infantry.

(4) Reilly, Robert M. “American Socket Bayonets and Scabbards”. Lincoln, Rhode Island. 1990.

(5) O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXVIII/2 [S# 47] Correspondence, Orders, And Returns Relating To Operations on the
              Coasts of South Carolina and Georgia, and In Middle and East Florida, From June 12 To December 31, 1863.
              CONFEDERATE CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.--#11

(6) McCarthy, Carlton.  “Detailed Minutiae of Soldier Life in the Army of Northern Virginia 1861 - 1865”. Lincoln,
              Nebraska. 1882. p 27

(7) Wiley, Bell Irwin. “The Life of Johnny Reb”. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 1943, renewed 1978. ,p 293 (see author’s note
             Chapter XV, No. 30)

(8) O.R.-- SERIES I, VOL XXVII,  PT I .

(9) O.R.-- SERIES I--VOL XXXVI/1 [S# 67]

(10) Reilly, Robert M. “American Socket Bayonets and Scabbards”. Lincoln, Rhode Island. 1990.
            (see pages 78 through 99 for descriptions, dimensions and sketches)