Actually, I will stick with what the drill books said - you carried a flag in battle - or something that looked like a flag. The military of that era was far more regimented in terms of alignment and movement than today's is and flags were critical to that movement. Not only do you drive the regiment through the color guard, but also having a flag tells the guys on your side what side you are on (the CW is loaded with flag confusion events as is not to mention uniforms colors, etc.). You do not carry a flag you risk friendly fire on smoke filled fields. The exception to this would be, of course, if you just lost your flag in a specific engagement and when that was over you sought out something to replace it as soon as possible be that using an older company or regimental flag or getting a new flag.

These drill books also had specific details for the color guard and that, too, was part of the regimental alignment in combat. So what do they do if they have no flag? As they are to march six paces in front of an advancing battle line what do they carry so that the regiment can see where they are going?

The Richmond Depot were definitely issuing flags into March, 1865. new Sec War John Breckinridge, the best of the five that held that post, pre-positioned supply dumps along the way for Lee to retreat to. If the depot had flags i April, 1865 then I see no reason that flags were not part of that.

With regards to flags for consolidated units, I think it was in February, 1864 where the CS War Department issued orders regarding the colors of these regiments. One flag was to be chosen and the others retired. This is in stark contrast to 1863 where some consolidated units carried both flags (the 15th/37th Tennessee at Chickamauga comes to mind).

Please keep in mind that most history professors today loath all things military and therefore do not study things like material culture (flags) nor do they study tactics of the musket era or things like drill manuals. Having also worked in a museum environment as well as working with academics, I can attest to the divide between those that state "if it is not on some paper source it cannot be," to "well then look at this artifact - that proves you wrong." It is the constant tug of war in the museum field today

I am not only a CW historian; I am also a historian of the musket era starting with the Duke of Marlborough through Frederick the Great and Napoleon. The drill books tightly regimented the troops of all of these armies which is exactly why warfare of the musket era was so set piece when on the field. Most college professors are clueless about this aspect. Hell, most college professors that teach the Civil War are clueless about any aspect of musket warfare before 1860. The proof is often shown in what they write. That is why I admire guys like Brent Nosworthy, a Napoleonic historian who has written one of the most crucial books of the Civil War, "The Bloody Crucible Of Courage," in my opinion the most important CW book of the last 15 years at least. He gets it.

Do not toss off the drill books. Armies of the musket era lived and died by then to a "T."

Greg Biggs