Civillian saddles in the Union Army

[volcav]

I was researching the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion the other day and came across this. I thought I'd post it for your comments. It appears to me that while the Mac was the official standard, there were other saddles issued by the Union too. We don't see many civilian saddles on the Union side of re-enacting. Note that the number of Grimsleys is less than any of the other two patterns of saddles on hand.

War Department,
Washington City, March 30, 1863

Maj. Gen. W.S. Rosecrans,
Mufreesborough, Tenn.
The Secretary of War directs me to infrom you that to-day 1,400 Gallageher's carbines, 150 Sharps' carbines, 226 Smith's carbines, and 500 Burnside's carbines, in all 2,276 carbines, with accoutermenets complete, have been forwarded to you, directed to Nashville, Tenn. We have on hand 792 sets of horse equipments of the Ranger pattern, 496 of the Grimsley pattern, and 2,000 of the ordinary citizen's pattern, in all 3,288 sets of good, substanstial, new horse equipments, very suitable for mounting infantry, which can be sent immediately, if you desire it; and in a very short time from 2,000 to 4,000 sets of the new cavalry pattern can be sent to you to mount cavalry. Shall either or both be sent? How many pistols, if any, do you want?
P.H. Watson,
Assistant Secretary of War

Murfeesborough, Tenn.
March 30,1863
P.H. Watson:
Thanks for the arms ordered. Please send us 6,000 Colt's pistols (new pattern) and all the horse equipments mentioned, including the citizens' saddles, soon as possible.
W.S. Rosecrans,
Major-General

I realize that the Assistant Secretary of War, a beauracrat far from the fighting, said the horse equipments would be quite suitable for mounting infantry. However, if I were a commander and needed equipment to mount my cavalry I'd take what I could get now to get them mounted and worry about upgrading when and if the other equipment ever arrived. From what I've read, it seems that enough equipment to mount the cavalry was a perpetual problem in the western theater. I don't think mounting the infantry would be a priority. Any other thoughts on this?

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

Jerry,

Excellent post!! Like you, I have long thought more variety in horse equipment on the Federal reenacting side would be in order such as horned "Ranger" saddles and even Jenifers.
My take on mounting the "infantry to cavalry" thing was that in the west (due to the vast area and need to counter the CS cavalry) there was a great need and desire for more mounted troops. As a result, Rosecrans and others decided to mount some of the infantry- especially the Tennessee (Federal) troops.
Ranger saddles are simply horned saddles, ""new cavalry pattern" is the McClellan, the "ordinary civilian saddles" could be any of a variety of civilian patterns but likely of the Kilgore, Somerset or English patterns including Spanish or Half Spanish.
Having studied the Confederate side of supply and issue I am quite taken back at the shear numbers and apparent ease of getting these arms and equipments....."in a very short time from 2,000 to 4,000 sets of the new cavalry pattern can be sent to you to mount cavalry. Shall either or both be sent? How many pistols, if any, do you want? .......and Rosecrans replies...."send us 6,000 (new pattern)....."
Gee, must be nice! ....My only consolation is that in a very short time Forrest was also likely thanking him for the prompt and efficient delivery (ha!)!

Thank you! We need more info on the Federal cavalry posted here!! Great post!

Ken R Knopp

https://www.confederatesaddles.com

[volcav]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

Hi Ken,

I suspect from my own experience with the Army Supply system that Rosecrans was taking what he could get while he could get it. Submitting the requisition is the easy part. Actually receiving what you asked for, in the quantity you asked for, in useable condition, and in a timely manner is almost unheard of today and I've seen examples in the OR's of how some things never seem to change.

One example I read in the OR's was a general requesting more horses to mount his cavalry. The War Department asked why he still needed horses when they sent him so many thousands on these dates (I'm working off memory here and don't have the numbers and dates but they were included in the correspondence). The War Department went on to advise the general that word had reached Washington that infantry and other branches not authorized horses were mounted in his division. The general denied knowledge of this stated nothing like that had happened during his time in command. The War Department told him to dismount the infantry and anyone else not authorized a horse and mount his cavalry on the horses he already had.

Two scenarios could have occurred in the above situation and the general very well might not have known about it. Billy Yank Sore Foot Infantryman has a buddy at the supply depot and hears about the horses that just came in. Tired of walking he asks if he can have a horse. His buddy fills out the paperwork and says sign here. Billy rides into camp and his buddies ask where he got the horse then they swarm the depot and sign for horses they aren't authorized. By the time the officers find out what's happening most the horses are issued out to Billy Sore Foot and friends.

Another scenario would be that a junior officer saw the horses and signed for them for his own company before the people in charge knew about it.

Then as you mentioned, Forrest was just waiting to hit another supply train. I imagine that Rosecrans was accepting all he could get and asking for more in hopes that he would actually have something left to use by the time it reached him.

I hadn't thought much about Jenifers being used by the Union but I'm sure there would have been some. There are numerous accounts of the Union capturing Confederate supplies and using them.

I read of one instance where a Federal commander decided to mount his infantry on bareback mules due to a lack of horses and equipment. Apparently that didn't work out so well. At the first gun shot of an ambush the infantry was abruptly dismounted by the mules and the mules promptly deserted the army. I still laugh when I picture that.

Most cavalry reenactment units I've seen that publish equipment standards online suggest an 1859 McClellen for a first saddle. I doubt that very many reenactors get around to buying a second saddle when they have one that "will work for everything". It seems like Confederate reenactors are more likely to have two or more saddles than Union reenactors.

[Andy Ackeret]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

I don't have the book handy to quote directly from it, but in A History of the 4th Wisconsin Infantry and Cavalry in the American Civil War by Michael J. Martin, the author has a wonderful quote from one of the members of the regiment describing the condition of their horses and horse equipment when the regiment first became mounted in 1863. The quote describes a variety of civilian saddles and if memory serves, claims a few fellows had side saddles and a few only blankets.

The regiment enlisted as infantry in 1861, and became mounted in 1863 around the time of Port Hudson. Later that year, they were officially redesignated as cavalry. After the war ended in 1865, they continued to serve in Texas until 1866.

I'll try and get the whole quote this weekend when I'll have access to my copy of the book.

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

Andy,

Side saddles??? That's a new one! I am sitting here trying to visualize a hapless Yankee cavalryman fully armed and accouterd with a carbine, saber, nose bag, canteen, haversack, picket pin and rope, etc., etc. at the end of a 35 mile march in a side saddle (if he survived it). Got to believe that would be difficult, probably ineffective and very painful. Would you be so kind as to retrieve that quote? I dont doubt you but that's a "must see". Thank you for the post!

Ken R Knopp

[Andy Ackeret]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

This quote is attributed to a soldier of the 4th Wisconsin who used the pen name "Politico." I am pulling it from A History of the 4th Wisconsin Infantry and Cavalry in the Civil War by Michael J. Martin, pg 153. Martin's citation says Politico's account was in the August 15, 1863 issue of the newspaper Milwaukee Sentinel, recounting a review of the 4th by General Banks in April, 1863:

"We were martialed before General B. as we were about to go off on an expedition of twenty miles. I saw the General smiling and suspected that it was not our warlike appearance which pleased him, for I assure you that we bore a striking resemblance to a cavalcade of 'Walker's recruits.' There was every conceivable style of horse and rigging. There was the five hundred dollar horse rigged off with mule's pack, saddle and ropes, and the raw-boned, browse-fed filly, with a gentleman's saddle and bridle. There were little men mounted on great horses, and great men mounted on little horses. There were long legs hung up in short stirrups, and short legs that went dangling six inches above the stirrups. There were some men riding on side-saddles, and some on sheep-skins (though the sheep-skin men were kept in the rear rank as much as possible). But the object on that day was merely to let the Gen. see that Western men could ride a horse, and knew how to guide one."

Please note the description above is from shortly after the time this regiment was mounted, and they were being used as mounted infantry, not cavalry.
Martin says a page earlier the horses the regiment was mounted with were acquired in southwest Louisiana. Later, Martin cites one of the company order books that the regiment was issued proper cavalry equipment in August, 1863.

The Politico quote is colorful to be sure, and I would have to assume, written knowing that it would be published.

[forrestcav]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

That would make sense. At the outbreak of the war the army as was typical was gutted. So the union as well as the confedercy was left scrambling to equip the swelling ranks. So what ever local saddlery's had on hand as well as what what was in storage would be pressed into service. I'm also sure many of the state units would ride what they could aquire. So am I to assume that these saddles would be dyed black to create a little more uniformity?
I can see the advantage of having a black ranger saddle to use as a union or confererate saddle. Yes we usually encourage new troopers to buy the '59 MAC so that it would be easier to galvanize. But this adds a new twist, especially for us western troopers.

[volcav]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

I suppose in theory it would be a good idea to dye the saddles and equipment black in an effort to achieve some sort of uniformity. However, my experience with trying to re-dye leather after the production process has been unsuccessful and frustrating with the end product being less attractive than the original. I'd say when it comes to civilian saddles that the color you got would be the color you kept. I'm not familiar with 1860's leather dying techniques so I could be mistaken. If someone has other information please feel free to correct me.

That leads me to think that mismatched tack may have been common too, not by choice but by necessity. Man, that thought grates on the nerves of my military training.

I've researched sidesaddles a bit for a novel I wrote recently. Those who ride aside claim it to be comfortable and some accomplished women actually rode to the hounds in England on sidesaddles. Then I've been told that many men who lost a leg during war rode aside after the war was over. Still, for military use I think it would ackward to say the least. I think I'd rather be bareback.

[forrestcav]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

the ability to redye would depend on the treatment of the leather. The actual dying would usually be the vinegaroon process and if the surface was sealed then yes I guess dying would be difficult. As well if it was hemlock tanned as a lot of northern leather was, then the black wouldn't hold. It's kinda amusing to think that after years of striving for all our equips to be the same and uniform, it just wasn't so, especially here in the west.
anybody have an idea on the rigging for the ranger saddles? I presume the civilian saddle were probaly english rigged.

[volcav]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

I've only seen reproductions of the Ranger saddles online. They appear to be a basic western saddle tree, skeleton rigged, with an 1859 Mac style girth. They are not double rigged like many modern western saddles. The makers of the reproductions advise the use of a surcingle with them and I'd use a civilian breast strap and crupper with one if I were riding it. You can see one on Doug Kidd's website under his Confederate saddles. I believe he refers to it as an Atlanta Arsenal produced Texas saddle. It's pretty much the same thing as the Ranger with a different name. Both North and South used the design. I'll get links to Doug Kidd and the other site I know of that sells them under the name of Ranger saddle and post the links.

[volcav]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

Doug Kidd, Border States Leatherworks http://www.borderstates.com/

19th Century Tack http://www.ushist.com/saddles-tack.htm

[AZFarrier]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

In Califonria the Cavalry were origionally issued Dragoon Surplus, from the various arsonals. The problem was that the Grimsley saddles would not fit the backs of the local horses. Gen Carlton requisitioned "California Saddles" which was a skeletin rigged texas saddle or ranger with a Muchilla. We suspected that the muchilla was dropped because of the unessisary weight (carlton was an old Dragoon Officer and understood traveling light. It was last year that I came across a gentleman who had the origional specs to the saddles that the 1st and 2nd California Cavalry was issued prior to the march across AZ and NM. I have yet to see the material but looking at my rig (I use a ranger saddle fromDoug Kidd) he says it is per near spot on.
Just my 2 cents from here WAY out west.

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

Good thread here. Lots of great information. If I might add a bit....The true appearance of Ranger saddles are a bit fuzzy but like all saddle they likely varied somewhat among makers. They were quite common in the west among Federal cavalry especially early in the war yet they never rivaled the McClellan. The photo I attach was taken in Gallatin, Tenn. in 1864. It is of a company saddler from Co. I, 8th Tenn. Cavalry, Federal. It is quite likely what he is holding is a Ranger saddle. Note that it is leather covered and rigged like a McClellan. More of these should be in the ranks of Federal cavalry reenactors.
May I also point out that there are distinct differences between a California and a Texas saddle mostly in tree configuration. California and Texas saddles varied a bit too over the decades of the 19th century but some features remained somewhat constant. The following quotes are from my article on 19th century saddles:

“At the peak of their popularity in the 1850's-60's the characteristic California saddle was distinctive by its large angled horn, low, oval cantles and their fine, Mexican influenced tooled leather mochilla’s. Most, looped the wide one-piece stirrup strap through the split between the two bars and also included decorative taparderos or, carved wooden stirrups. Eventually, the heavy mochillas and fancy stirrups faded from favor. Eastern saddle makers rarely included California saddles in their catalogs favoring instead Texas or Morgan saddles, however, those found in late 19th century catalogs were still differentiated from other saddles by their tree configurations and Spanish influenced decorative embellishments. By the 1920's however, the California saddle as a separate pattern was being obscured by other horned patterns.”

While Texas saddles are as follows:
“Like the California saddle the Hope and Texas saddles evolved from Mexican influences but with clear and distinct differences to the California as noted above. Early ones were not rawhide covered but also had Mochillas and higher horns. As the Texas saddle evolved it came in many configurations but is generally observed with squared jockey’s, a higher horn, cantle and deep seat largely attributed to its practical applications for working cattle and riding broncs.
Note: Applehorn saddles with/without Mochillas were popular from the 1850's through 1870's. The large Mexican “dinner plate” cap horns apparently came into fashion in the 1860's but were never very popular with most Americans. Steel horns were a useful innovation but did not appear with regularity until about the 1880's . Heavy steel stirrups came into fashion in the 1890's then faded away by the 1930's. Over the decades catalog Texas saddles grew larger, heavier and by the 1920's, eventually morphed into the cowboy’s trademark “stock” saddle albeit still primarily designed for the casual riding trade. It should be noted that the (late 19th century) typical commercial catalog Texas and stock saddles as noted above were not generally of the same quality as stock or ranch saddles by other independent makers that specialized in that “working cowboy” genre.”

Not that anybody here is doing so but the reason I write this is to avoid the perpetuation of mis-information regarding these saddles. The folks of the period understood the differences between all of these saddles but much of that has been lost over the years and now seems to get convoluted by us modern folks. Thanks!


Ken R Knopp

https://www.confederatesaddles.com

[brown]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

I also thought of Wilder's men riding anything with a back flat enough for a saddle. How many early mounted Wilder photos are there showing saddles?
Ken, thanks for the picture. Interesting to me as I had family in the 3rd TN Cav and 7th TN M.I.

[MustangGray]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

"Early ones were not rawhide covered but also had Mochillas and higher horns."

Mr. Knopp,

Not trying to hijack the thread, but when exactly did the Texas saddle get it's rawhide cover? I do 1840's and while the Texas saddle was maybe not known as such it was around in it's early stages... am I understanding you correctly that it wasn't rawhided at this point? Seems it wouldn't hold up to much heavy use as a bare wood tree. Interesting... I really like these saddle threads, wish we had a 19th c. Civilian Saddle Forum like the old Military Saddle Forum!