SCARCE AND IMPORTANT WHITNEY “HIGH-HUMP” M1855/61 RIFLE MUSKET: 8th CONNECTICUT REGIMENTAL MARKINGS AND SOLDIER ID

SCARCE AND IMPORTANT WHITNEY “HIGH-HUMP” M1855/61 RIFLE MUSKET: 8th CONNECTICUT REGIMENTAL MARKINGS AND SOLDIER ID

Hover to zoom

Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4 Image 5 Image 6 Image 7 Image 8 Image 9 Image 10 Image 11 Image 12 Image 13 Image 14 Image 15 Image 16

$8,950.00

Quantity Available: 1

Item Code: 2026-866

Shipping: Determined by Method & Location of buyer

To Order:
Call 717-334-0347,
Fax 717-334-5016, or E-mail

This rifle-musket has a 40-inch .58 caliber barrel with 7-groove rifling, a pewter stock tip, and a lockplate in the “humpback” 1855 style that was never milled for the Maynard tape priming system, which gave rise to that shape, and that has no legible markings. All bands, springs, swivels, ramrod and sights are in place. The two-leaf rear sight is US M1861 pattern, adopted in June 1861. Barrel breach and lockplate have fine salt-and-peppering from the corrosive effects of percussion caps. The buttplate shows heavier pitting, likely from standing on a damp surface. The rear sight shows small pitting on the leaves. The barrel forward of the breach and the mounts are smooth metal- mostly a caramel color with muted silver gray on the mounts, and caramel and brown tones on the hammer and lockplate. The mechanics are good. The bore is dirty and shows oxidation but the rifling is clear. The nipple is a replacement and shows blue.

The wood has an even, medium brown tone with rounding to the edges from handling and use, and some chips to the ramrod channel from drawing and returning the rod. Otherwise there are mostly just expected handling dings and scratches, with one, narrow vertical dragline just behind the middle band on the left. The only visible markings are on the wood at the rear of the right buttstock, an upside-down stamp reading “8 C V” over “C 21” all in the same size font and indicating the regiment, 8th Connecticut Volunteers, Company C and soldier Number 21, with a slightly larger “34” stamped over the latter, and partially obscuring the company letter, indicating the gun was reissued to soldier Number 34, a “rack number” that would identify his gear.

This falls into the category of Eli Whitney, Jr.’s “good and serviceable arms,” a general category of Whitney arms for state and militia purchasers who would not subject them to government gauges, in other words, they might lack the workmanship expected at a national armory and came with no guarantee of interchangeability of parts, even within a given pattern. In fact, the parts are usually a mix of Whitney parts such as the pewter stock-tip on this one, with over-run, surplus, imported, obsolete and even condemned parts acquired from other manufacturers and sources including national armories. An officer of the 8th CV, quoted in the regimental history,  made no bones about how poorly they compared with Springfields issued to a neighboring regiment.

The salient identifying characteristic of this particular pattern is its un-milled “high hump” 1855 style lockplate. Arms authors disagree on its dating, who received it, and exactly what to call it. Moller calls it the “Whitney Variant Model 1855/61 Rifle Musket (High Hump Lock;)” Flayderman, the “Whitney ‘Humpback’ Lockplate M1861 Type Rifle-Musket;” Madaus, “Whitney’s ‘Humpback’ Lockplate M1861 Derivative Rifle-Musket;” and Naumec, simply the “Whitney ‘High Hump’ Rifle Musket.” One of the few things all agree on is how rare it is. Flayderman estimates production at just 200, with several variations even within that small number.

Moller, somewhat confusingly, dates its production to 1860 and suggests it made up or was among some 2,000 rifle muskets sold by Whitney to Maryland in 1860 and delivered by early 1861, and some 1,220 (or 1,225) sold to Georgia the same year, also noting some have a NJ stamp as well, suggesting a direct or indirect sale to that state. Madaus, however, followed by Flayderman, suggests a later dating- to 1863 or even August 1863, largely on the use of US regulation 3-groove rifling evident in the bores of some examples. This one has the 7-groove rifling typical of Whitney, which Moller simply categorizes as the “First Type,” although it is a label he also uses for examples with 39-7/8 barrels and Whitney’s mid-range rear sight.

Madaus’s and Flayderman’s dating of the pattern to 1863 rests largely upon the use of 3-groove rifling in some examples, rifling that Whitney did not adopt until 1863. Naumec, however, offers a way out of the dilemma, positing that for some of these Whitney was using surplus or rejected barrels that he had purchased before the war from Springfield or Harpers Ferry. Ironically, this is supported, by Moller, who notes on the 3-groove example of his “second type” that, “the rifling shows incorrect indexing of the cutter head in successive cuts, and was probably condemned for this reason.”

On the whole, Naumec seems closest to the mark in noting that the number of variations in this pattern simply indicates simply that, “Whitney was producing them out of various surplus parts he had,” and in dating them to the same period as Whitney’s June 27, 1861, contract with Connecticut for 6,000 rifle muskets. An 1861-62 date is also supported by the lack, or illegibility, of a lockplate marking. “E. WHITNEY / NEW HAVEN” has been noted on these locks, but all authors note that the marking tends to be soft, indicating the die was wearing out and that it was replaced in late 1862 by the “[eagle]/Whitneyville” marking. Even Madaus has to make a special argument that the plates were marked earlier but the guns not assembled until 1863, on the basis of his assumption about the 3-groove rifling.

In fact, this particular example encourages us to go a step further and posit these arms were among the 6,000 rifle muskets delivered under that June 1861 contract. Naumec does not make the connection, but does illustrate another 8th Connecticut marked rifle musket marked “8 CV/A 18,” which is a true Model 1855 in having a functional Maynard tape primer lock. That musket might even be one of the 350 such rifle muskets acquired by the state from Whitney under a separate agreement, but in any case that rifle musket in connection with this one with similar markings would indicate the 8th Connecticut was getting both Whitney M1855 Rifle Muskets and Whitney M1855 Derivative Rifle Muskets- something that likely made little difference since percussion caps were used on both.

The “8 CV” regimental marking in the buttstock is unambiguous. The initial rack number and new rack number are equally clear. The company letter is partially obscured by the new rack number but seems to show two forward points indicating “C,” with “K” ruled out since that company was one of two flank companies in the regiment and were armed with Sharps rifles. The change of rack number, indicating a reissue of gun in the company, is somewhat complicated by changes also to the numbers assigned to men in the company descriptive books. Number 21 in Company C seems to have been given initially to Henry Clark, but he was reassigned number 30, and it is William J. Chadsey (also “Chatsey”) of Company C, who was renumbered as Number 34, the new number on the butt stock. Born in 1844, Chadsey had enlisted Sept. 25, 1861, at New Hartford, and mustered into the 8th CT for three years as private in Co. C. He was listed as age 18, 5’4” tall with light complexion, blue eyes, and light hair, born in St. James Parish, LA, and a farmer by occupation. Chadsey served out his full three years, having been wounded twice, three times by his own count, and was captured at the very tail-end of his service but released soon after.

While Chadsey was with the 8th Connecticut, the regiment was part of Burnside’s Expeditionary Corps, the Department of NC, 9th Corps Army of the Potomac, 7th Corps Dept. of Va; 18th Corps Dept of Va and NC, and the Army of the James to December 1864, and later in the 24th Corps. They suffered 112 officers and men killed or mortally wounded in battle and likely several times that in wounded, taking part in the following engagements during Chadsey’s service: New Bern, N.C., March 17, 1862; Fort Macon, N.C., April 1862; Antietam, Md., September 17, 1862; Fredericksburg, Va., December 11 and 13, 1862; Fort Huger, Va., April 11 and April 19, 1863; Walthall Junction, Va., May 7, 1864; Fort Darling or 2d Drewry's Bluff, Va., May 12 to May 16, 1864; Cold Harbor, Va., June 1 to 10 1864; near Petersburg, Va., June 15 to 17, 1864, and June 17 to September 28, 1864.

Chadsey served out his three-year term of service and was wounded twice – three times by his count- and captured near the very end of his term. His service records overtly state that he was in all the engagements of the regiment up to that point and was also one of the roughly 100 men from the regiment who volunteered to help lay a pontoon bridge at Fredericksburg on Dec. 11, 1862, a job that put them under fire without arms until better sense prevailed and details crossed the river to drive back the Confederate target shooters. His file records a slight wound in the right leg at Fort Darling (Drewry’s Bluff) 5/11/64 and another in the left arm at Petersburg 6/26/64. Chadsey’s own statements in his pension file indicate he was wounded in collarbone by stone kicked up by a Confederate solid shot that struck the ground in front of him at Antietam, a particularly bloody fight for the regiment, which went in with 400 men and lost 34 killed, 139 wounded and 21missing.

He was captured in action at Cox’s Mills 9/16/64 and was confined at Richmond. His own statement in his pension file gives the date as August 27, likely a slip of memory. His imprisonment was brief. He stated that he was “exchanged among sick and wounded, and sent to Exchange Camp at Annapolis, and discharged Sept. 23rd 1864.” Some official records date his discharge to Sept. 24 or Sept. 25, all clearly fitting his three-years service from his enlistment. Other documents indicate the paperwork took longer, one saying he was actually discharged Nov. 3, 1864, but giving September as the effective date. Similarly, some records place him in the Exchange Camp until November, while some say he was sent to Hartford and at least one that the paperwork at least was not officially signed until February 1865.

In any case, his only absence from the unit seems to have been from Feb. 27, 1864, to March 27, 1864, when he absented himself without permission and missed returning to front from a furlough on time. A regimental court-martial fined him a month’s pay and he recalled doing drill for ten days while wearing a knapsack filled with bricks. He survived to return home, marry twice, and pass away in 1929. As a side note- he noted that his middle initial, “J,” did not stand for anything- he merely liked using it.

His Whitney rifle-musket is both a scarce Civil War longarm and one that we think helps clarify somewhat the puzzle of Whitney variant or, better, derivative military arms, which are a very interesting, if somewhat challenging, collecting category, and a part of the Whitney’s role in US arms and industrial development of the 19th century.   [sr][ph:L]

DISCLAIMER: All firearms are sold as collector's items only - we do not accept responsibility as to the shooting safety or reliability of any antique firearm. All firearms are described as accurately as possible, given the restraints of a catalog listing length. We want satisfied customers & often "under" describe the weapons. Any city or state regulations regarding owning antique firearms are the responsibility of the purchaser. All firearms are "mechanically perfect" unless noted, but again, are NOT warranted as safe to fire!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THIS ITEM, AS WITH ALL OTHER ITEMS AVAILABLE ON OUR WEB SITE,

MAY BE PURCHASED THROUGH OUR LAYAWAY PROGRAM.

CLICK HERE FOR OUR POLICIES AND TERMS.

THANK YOU!

Inquire »

Inquire About SCARCE AND IMPORTANT WHITNEY “HIGH-HUMP” M1855/61 RIFLE MUSKET: 8th CONNECTICUT REGIMENTAL MARKINGS AND SOLDIER ID

should be empty