Civillian saddles in the Union Army

[Outrider]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

"I really like these saddle threads, wish we had a 19th c. Civilian Saddle Forum like the old Military Saddle Forum! "

Yeah. What he said.

[forrestcav]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

looking at ushist.com ranger saddle it's almost identical to the atlanta arsenal hope. Leather covered or do you mean rawhide covered Ken? It looks like I could build the atlanta arsenal in black and have the ranger saddle. Or would it be the atlanta copied the ranger saddle?

[T.Kern]

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.

Why would one think they should dye a perfectly usable civilian saddle? I don't see any need. They used what they got. when there a a lack of supplies they use more of anything.
Todd Kern

[T.Kern]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

I don't believe the ranger saddle were leather covered, as one period description I have seen is that it is the same as a McClellan but that the tree is a Texas tree. Nor do I agree that Texas trees were not rawhide covered, having seen some that were.
If you want a good period saddle, I would talk to Stuart Lilie or Nick Duvall, Doug if you tell him to make it right not just "reenactor " grade. So many reenactors don't even realize the inaccuracies in their saddle it is sad. It is the fault of the commanders and their anything goes policy, no more do the people of merit lead but the people who can get the most clowns in funny clothes. Sorry to say, Cavalry is really going down hill.
Todd Kern

[volcav]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

The whole reason I joined the forum was to improve my own impression and hopefully others through leading by example.

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

....."The whole reason I joined the forum was to improve my own impression and hopefully others through leading by example."
YES!, In just a few words, your quote is a big part of what this forum should be about. Thank you for saying that Jerry!!

Sorry, been busy and haven’t been able to respond till now. My understanding of the Ranger saddle is very fuzzy but I don’t believe there is a lot of detailed information on them. However, I am of the opinion that it was finished a lot like the McClellan at least as far as the Federal use of it.
It may very well be that the “Ranger” was simply the moniker applied to some sort of pre war horned saddle that was appropriated by the Federals and subsequently finished like a McClellan. I am speculating as I really don’t know. Like so many other saddles of the period it was also likely duplicated and imitated in various forms by different makers. So its appearance may have varied. Although it was used quite extensively by the Federals I don’t believe it had any standard of “official” adoption or pattern. Maybe Todd Kern or Lester Schumaker have more information on this than I and would care to share it.
As for the Texas saddle, I must apologize for the poor choice of words on my part. I did not intend to imply that the Texas as made without rawhide. Some early Mexican saddles likely were without rawhide (and covered with leather Mochila’s, Anqueras and Armas) but the Texas always had rawhide covering (early ones often with Mochilas). Having done very little real research on the subject my information on these early saddles is limited to the extensive research done by two great saddle historians, Russel H Beattie and James Hutchins in their respective works, “Saddles” and “Man Made Mobile, Early Saddles of Western North America”. To my knowledge these are the most complete if not “only” extensive published work on early 19th century (North American) saddles. The authors generally agree on the history of the early horned saddles with minor exceptions. I urge anyone with an interest to buy these books and study them. They include many photos and drawings.
From their research it appears the earliest horned saddles (in the New World) were called Mexican saddles or Spanish saddles by us Anglos but “Jineta”, “Vaquero” or “Charro” saddles by the Mexicans. Horned Mexican saddles go back a long time (not clear how far back) with our knowledge of them about the time of the expeditions of Lewis and Clark and Zebulan Pike. The “Hope” was an offshoot of these and likely originated by the Hope family in Texas maybe as early as the 1830's or 40's. Westerners (Anglo Saxons) tended to call these horned saddles “Hope saddles” as far west as New Mexico along the Sante Fe Trail. In western Louisiana similar saddles may have been called “Attakapas” saddles. Further west they were known as the “California”. Other names or geographic patterns likely existed too. The California and Hope saddles were the most prominent and both adopted from the Mexican saddle but differed in the appearance. Later (about 1860), the term “Texas” saddle was the name generally applied by non-Texans to most horned saddles. Eventually, the Hope name was less prominent and simply referred to as the Texas saddle. Still later came horned “Morgan” saddles, then “stock” and now, “Cowboy” saddles.
Not to confuse the issue but horned Spanish (and “Half Spanish”) saddles appear to have originated in St Louis, probably by Thornton Grimsely (and others) about the 1820's. These were different than true Mexican or Spanish saddles (or the other patterns above) as they adopted features of both the Mexican and English patterns. Still more horned patterns blended features from these and other patterns throughout the 19th century. Truly like humans, saddles often tend to be hybrids of hybrids creating a lot of confusion when trying to discern direct lineage. As a”student” I can say with confidence that in my opinion we know little about these saddles and will likely not ever know the true or complete histories of them.
For more detail on these and other “later 19th century civilian” patterns I suggest folks pick up a copy of January’s NORTH SOUTH TRADER for a copy of my article. It goes into a lot more detail on the common commercial patterns with photographs and drawings.
As for your interest in reproducing or riding an 1840's Texas (or Hope) saddles I attach a couple of classic photographs from the books cited above for reference. As one can see they are rather simple affairs.


Ken R Knopp

https://www.confederatesaddles.com

[forrestcav]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

Thanks Ken. And as for the dying issue. I was impling that an atlanta arsenal pattern like Doug's in black would probaly closely ressemble the ranger saddle. I was not trying to imply that the federal would dye a saddle for uniformity purposes.

[John E. Tobey]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

Here's some information on US issue Ranger saddles.

The wartime contract correspondence relating to Betts Nichols & Co. are specific enough to give us some details: they were rawhide covered, and the saddle bags were russett.

Other assorted military correspondence from Betts Nichols & Co. gives us some additional details: the saddles had no provision for blanket straps, and these had to be retrofitted after government acceptance by a BN & Co. employee. These straps, once fitted, consisted of only four straps instead of the regulation six.

Throughout all of the documentation on these saddles, there was the interchangeable use of the terms "Ranger," "Texas" and "Texian". The US Army usually called them "Rangers," the BN & Co. called them "Texas" and the troops who used them called them any of the three.

There is a photograph that probably shows Ranger saddles -- a photo of mounted cadets at West Point. Given that the date on the photo is correct, this photo *must* show Ranger saddles, since that was the predominate saddle at the Academy during the war. The details in this photo are meager, but show rather large, flat horns and quarterstrap rigging similar to McClellans.

John Tobey

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

A few more pieces to the puzzle! Great stuff! Thanks John!
I had never heard it said nor would I have imagined that the "Ranger" saddle was at West Point during the war. I can only wonder why? Do you have any other information on this?
Also, any chance you can post the aforementioned photo from West Point? Maybe someone could blow it up for more detail? I am wondering how it compares other known descriptions of this saddle.
Thank you!

Ken R Knopp

https://www.confederatesaddles.com

[John E. Tobey]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

Ken,

Here's the full breakdown on the saddles used at West Point. The data comes from RG 156, "Records of the Chief of Ordnance" Summary of Quarterly Reports, MP 1281 R2-3.

"Military Academy Detachment" at West Point, NY

4th Qtr. 1862
40 Saddles M59

1st Qtr. 1863
15 Saddles M59, 62 Saddles "Ranger" Pattern

2nd Qtr. 1863
15 Saddles M59, 62 Saddles "Ranger" Pattern

3rd Qtr. 1863
15 Saddles M59, 62 Saddles "Ranger" Pattern

4th Qtr. 1863
15 Saddles M59

3rd Qtr. 1864
15 Saddles M59, 62 Saddles "Ranger" Pattern

So we can see that by the beginning of 1863, and probably until the end of the war, the Ranger pattern was the predominant saddles at the 'Point.

I don't have permission to reproduce the photo I mentioned.

John Tobey

[Masich]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

“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.”

This is very helpful stuff, Ken. I would like to see your entire article--did I miss a link in an earlier post? Please send the reference or the article in its entirety, if you can. Oh, and keep up the great work--this is ground-breaking stuff. Now that Jim Hutchins is gone, you guys are the experts and will have to continue his work in search of the elusive Ranger and related saddles.

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

Thank you Andy but I am no expert (are there really any experts?)- just a student like everyone else. James Hutchins was one of my personal heros and mentor in this subject matter. The old timers like Hutchins, Steffen and Beattie are gone. Another more obscure but very knowledgable researcher/collector (and occasional author) on horse equipment is my good friend Mr. Ralph Emerson Jr. Sadly, now suffering dementia in a nursing home. There were others too like Hank Kluin who did great research work on the Federal side of saddlery (I am sure I am missing some more). They and others have contributed plenty- much of it often unacknowledged and unrewarded. Some of the current contributors putting out information are Howard Crouch, Ken McPheeters and R.S. Dorsey. All still publishing good work. Folks like Aden Nichols have done some fine research and are quite knowledgable but have not published in quite some time. Still others are very knowledgeable but do not publish at all or only dabble in the genre. The mantle will be passed just as all of us will too and we should be responsible enough to unselfishly forward the effort. We owe it to those who came before us.
The quotes you note are from an article entitled "Commercial and Catalog Saddles of 19th & Early 20th Century America". It can be found in its entireity with photos on the web site: www.confederatesaddles.com ,. Look under the top banner for "Feature articles by Ken R Knopp" , then click on the title.

Ken R Knopp

[McKechnie]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

This is an amazing thread! I'm in the process of searching for a suitable civilian pattern saddle as an alternative- unfortunately, the MacClellan doesn't really fit my horse very well. Definitely a lot to study here. Thanks!

[Tom Craig]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

Hey Adam,

For my curiousity, what is the issue with the McClellan fitting your horse?

Take care,
Tom Craig
1st Maine Cavalry

[McKechnie]

Re: Civillian saddles in the Union Army

Basically, the issue with the McClellan fitting is that the tree had some bridging issues, especially towards the rear, that ulitmately wound up causing hair loss and some soring. This was about four years ago when I first got the horse and the saddle.

Since then, I didn't use the saddle and in the meantime, my horse has lost weight and muscled up (in a good way- he's right where he should be). In the past year, I have started using the saddle after geting it checked out by a knowledgeable friend (the saddle was made by Doug Kidd- I know, probably not correct but it will have to do for now) with a thin wool pad underneath the the blanket with no issues. However, I only use the saddle for events and I'm constantly checking his back. Let's just say I'm cautious- I don't want a repetition (that was a nightmare).

Unfortunately, my horse is probably one of those "modern" horses but unlike many, I work him often and monitor his feed.