Home > Hayward’s Porterhouse
Is the zouave in E. D. Hawthorn’s Interior of George Hayward's Porter House, 187 Sixth Avenue, N.Y.C. a member of the Anderson Zouaves?
By John Tierney
The painting Interior of George Hayward's Porter House, 187 Sixth Avenue, N.Y.C. by Edmund D. Hawthorn is an unusual and rare scene depicting the elegant bar which stood on the southwest corner of 13th Street and Sixth Avenue during the Civil War. Among the patrons are several figures in the colorful dress uniforms of New York militia units. With the formalised grouping and the distinctive features of each figure there is little doubt that this painting depicted people who were probably well known at the time, however, today their identities are lost. Despite this, it has long been believed that the zouave seated in the foreground with cigarette, backpack and rifle is a member of the Advance Guard, or company "I", of the Anderson Zouaves.
The identification of this individual as a member of the Anderson Zouaves appears to have been made by Roger Sturke in 1991 when he wrote and illustrated a description of the uniform of the Anderson Zouaves for the journal, Military Collector & Historian.1 However, besides Sturke's assertion that the figure is a member of the Anderson Zouaves, there appears to be no other proof that this is actually the case.
Hawthorn's painting is in the collection of the New York Historical Society. A catalogue description from the society's website says of the painting:
  1. …in the right foreground a group seated about a table listens to a bearded man talk; one of the men is dressed in Turkish military uniform. 2
The New York Historical Society does not even recognise the uniform as American or, at the very least, French. As none of the other individuals in the group has been identified, it is likely that Sturke's conclusion that the zouave is a member of Riker's regiment is based upon nothing more than the similarity between the uniform in the painting and that which is in the collection of the Smithsonian Institute. If this is the case, then there is reason to question whether or not Sturke has got it right.
The purported year of the painting is 1863, however, this scene would appear to be from the beginning of the war or possibly even from before. It is possible that Hawthorn may have been commissioned to paint the picture in 1861 but was unable to finish it until 1863. The appearance of the other military figures in the room seems to lend weight to the argument that this is a pre-war or early war scene. The grouping on the left at the bar appears to be of a member of the 79th New York Highlanders in conversation with an officer of the Gardes Lafayette (55th New York Militia). Behind these is another officer of the 55th and, in the grey uniform, what appears to be a member of the famous 7th Regiment. Besides these and the zouave, the rest of the figures appear to be a few staff, a beggar, a boot-black and a number of well to do gentlemen conversing.
Assuming that the military figures have been correctly identified it may be possible to date the painting from the uniforms.
While the figures in the painting are clearly not wearing campaign uniforms, it is known that the 55th New York took on a new uniform of light blue soon after the beginning of the war. The Highlanders are said to have abandoned their kilt in the field after the First Battle of Bull Run. So if this painting is from early 1861 it is unlikely that the zouave in the foreground was a member of the Sixty-second regiment. Setting aside the zouave and the debate surrounding it, it is notable that all the other military figures seem to represent militia orgnisations that existed in New York before the war. There are no individuals who can be identified as regular US Army or as members of New York volunteer regiments.
Furthermore, the white molded ceiling cornices, the French gas chandeliers, the plate glass mirrors behind the bar and the many oil paintings on the walls show that this bar was a fashionable establishment – hardly the sort of place that would attract or even welcome the rough and uncouth recruits of the Sixty-second from the sixth ward or the river counties.
As the crow flies, the bar was only a few hundred metres from Union Square where Riker had his recruiting tent, but situated where it was the bar was but a short distance from any of the recruiting stations and militia headquarters in lower Manhattan. Palace Gardens, another recruiting area, was even closer to the bar than Union Square. Lafayette Hall, the headquarters of the 55th at 507 Broadway, was less than a kilometre away and the armory of the 7th Regiment on Fifth Avenue was but a few blocks. However, proximity is probably not a good indicator of the likelyhood of a new recruit from company "I" of the Anderson Zouaves being portrayed in Hawthorn's painting. As already stated, Hayward’s establishment probably did not welcome new army recruits.
Making a comparison between the zouave uniforms in the painting and in the Smithsonian Institute reveals some significant differences between the two.
 
             
Several views of the uniform in the collection of the Smithsonian Institute.
The uniform of the zouave in the painting appears to share many of the attributes of the uniform of the Advance Guard of the Anderson Zouaves, however, unlike the Smithsonian uniform, the Hawthorn's uniform does not have an "A" monogram in the right orange tombeau. Besides the monograms in the tombeaus the Smithsonian uniform is completely unadorned with gold braid or buttons, however, the uniform of Hawthorn's Zouave appears to have eight or nine small gold bell buttons running along the deep sleeve slash and a design of gold braid on the outside of the sleeve. Hawthorn's zouave also appears to be wearing a yellow or gold silk shirt with full sleeves which can be seen protruding from the sleeve slash.
Detail of Hawthorn’s zouave.
If not a member of the Anderson Zouaves then it is likely that the zouave in the painting was a member of the 55th New York. Company "I" of the 55th was a zouave company which wore a uniform which in its description appears to be exactly the same as that of the Advance Guard of the Anderson Zouaves. Regis De Trobriand, the colonel of the regiment described the uniform in his book Four Years in the Army of the Potomac:
  1. To complete the sketch of the Fifty-fifth, I must mention here an anomaly, which had come to us from the militia service, and from which we could not be freed until after a campaign. I mean a company of Zouaves in the regiment. Their uniform was precisely that of the French Zouaves, and of which they presented besides all the characteristics. I do not know whether I should attribute this peculiarity to the soldierly traditions which had crossed the Atlantic during the Crimean and Italian wars, to the spirit of imitation, or to the influence of the uniform. The nationality had nothing to do with it, the company being a strange mixture of French, Germans, Americans, and Irish, of which no one element predominated to any great extent. However this might be, they were always thoroughly Zouaves. Their commander was a young captain, born in the barracks, raised in the regiment, became afterward a non-commissioned officer, had made the campaign of the Crimea, and owed his present position to his efficiency as an instructor as well as to his knowledge of the service.
  2. The Zouaves of the Fifty-fifth remained Zouaves during the life of one uniform, that is the space of one campaign. The State had furnished their red caps, their laced jackets, their closed vests, their large red breeches, their leather shoes, and the regimental chest their blue waistbands. When the clothing had to be renewed, the government very wisely sent us the regulation uniform. It was the same, with the red cap, the red pantaloons, and the blue coat. But for nearly a year the Fifty-fifth had to wear its special uniform.3
If the only evidence we have for the claim that the zouave in the painting of Hayward’s Porterhouse is a member of the Anderson Zouaves is the similarity between the  uniform in the painting and the example in the Smithsonian Institute, then it appears that there could be a second claim to ownership. Perhaps the zouave with the bell buttons and gold lace on his sleeves is a member of the 55th New York’s zouave company.
Zouaves of company “I” of the 55th New York standing atop the battlements of Fort Gaines.
As the uniform of the 55th New York’s zouave company and that of the Advance Guard of the Anderson Zouaves appears to be identical in most respects then it is possible that the company of the 55th which left that regiment to form the nucleus of company “I” of the Anderson Zouaves may well have taken their uniforms with them. The “A” and “Z” monograms would then have been a way of differentiating these Advance Guard Anderson Zouaves from the identically uniformed Company “I” of the 55th. If this is the case then, somewhat  ironically given that the point of this essay is to claim otherwise, the zouave in Hawthorn’s painting, while he may be a member of the 55th could in fact be a future member of the Anderson Zouaves.
This being said, it is interesting to notice a few other inconsistencies between the painting and what we know about the uniform and equipment of the Anderson Zouaves. While the musket appears to be a two banded weapon it does not appear to be a Lorenz which two companies of the Anderson Zouaves were armed with in late 1861. The Russia braid which surrounds the pockets of the the zouave in the painting appears to be black in colour while that on the uniform in the Smithsonian Institute is dark green. Finally the pack with its tan coloured cover appears to be militia issue as opposed to Federal issue.
 
Col. De Trobriand and the captain of the zouave company, August Edmond Veyer, target “Miss Lina” (named after De Trobriand’s daughter) at Fort Gaines, Tennallytown, in late 1861. While De Trobriand is wearing the 55th’s new light blue uniform, Veyer and his 1st Lieut. George H. Felt (far right) wear the distinctive dark blue uniform similar to that worn by the 55th officers in Hawthorn’s painting. Below is a close-up view of De Trobriand and Veyer.
If the painting of Hayward’s Porterhouse is in fact based on a pre-war or early war meeting, then it may be possible to identify the 55th New York officers at the bar if not any of the other individuals. Assuming that the officers are commissioned company officers or high ranking members of the Field & Staff of the 55th, then they could be either two of Col. Eugene Le Gal, Col. Regis De Trobriand, Lieut. Col. Louis Thourot or Capt. August E. Veyer.
If Sturke has made an error and confused a member of the 55th New York for a member of the 62nd New York, then it will not have been the first time it has happened. Historically it seems to have been a common occurence.
In a newspaper article appearing in the Oswego Commercial Times on June 17, 1862 the captain of company “D” of the 81st New York reported under the heading “Company D Joins the Zouaves” that he  withdrew his company ”…now numbering about thirty men, and conducted them into a rifle pit in conjunction with the 55th New York (Anderson Zouaves) of Couch's Division.”
Such confusion was not limited to those who may not have been familiar with the two regiments. Albion P. Howe who was the brigade commander of both the 55th and the 62nd at the Battle of Malvern Hill states in his report on the battle:
  1. The brigade on that day was composed of the following regiments, viz.:
  2. The 102d (old 13th) Pennsylvania Volunteers, commanded by Col. Rowley; the 98th Pennsylvania commanded by CoL Ballier; the 93d Pennsylvania, commanded by Capt. Long; the 62d New York, commanded by Lieut. Col Thorout. 4
The 55th has been left out of the Howe’s report completely and Liet. Col. Thourot, the commander of the 55th at the time, as De Trobriand was disabled by sickness, placed in command of the Anderson Zouaves. It is possible that the similarity between the uniforms of the zouaves of the 55th and the Advance Guard of the 62nd led to this confusion, for Howe had only taken command of the brigade a week before the battle. Other  reports make it clear that both the 55th and 62nd fought at the Battle of Malvern Hill.
           
Colonel De Trobriand and Lieut. Colonel Thourot in the 55th officers’ campaign dress plus an illustration of Le Gal who commanded the 55th prior to De Trobriand but was forced to resign by officers of the regiment who thought that his preparations for active duty were too slow. It was this prevarication of Le Gal which led to about 50 members of the 55th joining the Anderson Zouaves in May 1861. These three are possible candidates for the identities of the 55th officers in Hawthorn’s painting
It is an irony of history that while the zouave in the painting by Hawthorne, so long believed to be a member of the Anderson Zouaves, is much more likely to have been a member of the pre-war 55th New York Militia, that in May of 1861 with the defection of a company of the 55th to the 62nd, this individual may have found himself a member of the Advance Guard of the Anderson Zouaves. Knowing that such an event took place allows us to fancifully speculate on the event being depicted in the painting. Perhaps the zouave with the gold braid on his sleeves is a sergeant of the 55th New York’s zouave company negotiating with Lieut. Col. Tisdale of the 62nd. Perhaps the zouave is the Italian Louis La Fata who went on to become the captain of the Advance Guard of the 62nd. The officers at the bar, distant and excluded from the conversation at the table, may be the rejected Col. Le Gal and Captain Veyer. Unlikely of course, but possible and as good an explanation as any other yet offered for what is going on in this scene.
We are unlikely to ever know who the individuals in Hawthorn’s painting are, when the meeting occured or what was being discussed at the time, however, we can be fairly certain that the zouave in the painting is not a member of the Anderson Zouaves but a member of the Gardes Lafayette.
 
Notes:
  1. 1.Sturke, R., 1973, ‘62nd Regiment, New York Volunteer Infantry, (Anderson Zouaves), 1861-1865’, Military Colector & Historian, Journal of The Company of Military Historians, vol. XXXV, no. 1, Spring, 1983.
  2. 2.<http://emuseum.nyhistory.org/code/emuseum.asp>
  3. 3.De Trobriand, R. P., 1889, Four Years with the Army of the Potomac, (trans. George K.  Dauchy), Boston, MA.
    p. 82-83.
  4. 4.Official Report of Gen. Howe. Headquarters Howe's brigade, Couch's Division, Harrison's Landing, July 5, 1862. Oneida Weekly Herald, July 22, 1862.