While armor was relatively during the American Civil War, it was still something that some soldiers on both side used. While neither the Union of Confederate Army ever issued armor to their soldiers, some soldiers bought body armor from private firms or even individual blacksmiths with their own money. Often, armor salesman would travel from army camp to army camp, hawking various pieces of body armor, many of very dubious quality. The two most common legitimate armorers during the Civil War were G&D Cook Company and the Atwater Armor Company, both located in New Haven, Connecticut. Before the Civil War both companies advertised their products to guards, police, and other law enforcement officials. With the Civil War they hit paydirt, with Atwater Armor Company manufacturing 200 sets of armor at the height of the war. The armor made by G&D Cook (pictured above right) consisted of two plates, with a cavalry and infantry model, while the Atwater Company set (above left) featured four plates. Both manufacturers lined their armor with blue cloth and gold buttons to match the standard Union Army uniform. Confederate armor is rare due to the shortages of iron and steel in the south during the war.
(note: the Atwater armor shown above was worn by Capt. William G. LeDuc of Hastings, Minnesota and is currently housed with the Minnesota Historical Society)
In the first few years of the war the use of body armor was somewhat popular. However, as the war progressed use of body armor became less and less common. This was for three reasons. First, fine quality plate armor, such as the armor made for a wealthy knight or nobleman in the Late Middle Ages or Renaissance, is always made to specifically fit the wearer. Properly fitting armor will feel light (much lighter than it actually weighs), flexible, and do little to hinder movement. To see what a person can do in properly fitting plate armor, see the video below.
The armor made during the American Civil War was not individually fitted, often only being made in three or four sizes. Even though the weight of Civil War armors was only around 3-6lbs, improperly fitted armor can feel much heavier than it’s actual weight and be extremely uncomfortable. Thus many sets of armor were ditched shortly after soldiers went on the march. Second, during the Civil War, many saw wearing armor as a mark of cowardice. The third reason for declining use was due to how well it protected the wearer. Which brings up a good question: how well did this armor actually protect the wearer?
The outbreak of gunpowder warfare started an arms race between the gunmaker and the armorer, with the gunmaker inventing new firearms technology that could penetrate armor, and the armorer in turn inventing better armor which could stop a bullet. The race was pretty even up until the beginning of the 18th century. However, during the Napoleonic Wars armorers could make armor which could stop a musket ball (ahem, sometimes). Such breastplates were heavy and were extremely expensive, and thus only reserved for elite cavalry units such as cuirassiers, but it could be done.
With the invention of the minie ball and the rifled musket in the mid 19th century, the arms race between armorer and gunmaker became a runaway race in favor of the gunmaker, and the only armor that could effectively stop a bullet was so heavy that it was impractical. Older smoothbore muskets had low muzzle velocity and limited range. Mid 19th century rifled muskets firing conical shaped minie balls had substantially greater velocity with greater range and accuracy. So with this in mind I return to my original question. Of course, the armor was effective in melee combat against saber strikes and bayonets. When testing their armor, most manufacturers proofed their armor to stop pistol shots at close range, but rifle shots at around 200 – 300 yards. The advertisement above advertises “pistol shots at 10 paces, and rifle shots at 40 rods (220 yards or 201 meters). Typically battle lines opened fire at ranges around 100 yards. So in other words, in typical Civil War combat ranges, most armorers would not claim that their armor was effective.
In 1862 a New Jersey officer named Col. F. Johnson purchased a number of popular armors and tested them against rifled muskets. In a letter to his wife he remarked,
“ …a common musket put a ball clear through it at 50 yards, through yes, and carried some four or five inches of the stuff with it.“
Sometimes the armor could be effective. One example is from Capt. Jesse H. Jones of Company I, 60th New York Infantry, whose body armor stopped a bullet on July 2nd, 1863 during the Battle of Gettysburg. But then again there is the account of Gen. Joshua Chamberlain from his wartime memoirs The Passing of Armies (Chapt. 7), who remarked that such armor was only good for identifying the skeletal remains from a battle fought at the beginning of the war,
“In the morning the men got to looking around among the bodies and relics, and by initials cut into the breast-plates or other marks or tokens identified the remnants of bodies of comrades long left among the missing.”
Knights in binding armor: to a Civil War soldier, a bulletproof vest could be a lifesaver–or just one more impediment. America’s Civil War, v.23, no.1, 2010 March, p.56(4) (ISSN: 1046-2899).
Smithsonian: National Museum of American History Article,
