Saddle question

[neocelt]

Re: Saddle question

The Unpleasant Truth:

Brett, you're not using a surcingle? Why? And "history aside" is not a very good reason...

To the best of my knowledge, there is no commercially-available reproduction enlisted issue '59 McClellan saddle that is built on an authentic replica of the original tree. NONE. I am speaking of materials, workmanship, and dimensions/contours. Further, as no two repro saddles are exactly alike, it is anyone's guess how Brett's saddle fits his horse. Hence, this is a somewhat circular argument.

Then there's the horse. Neither Arabs nor Morgans were very common during the Civil War period, and both of these breeds have fairly unique conformation anomalies that make them a challenge to fit, even for a modern saddler. It is also worthy of note that precious few reenactment horses are as fit as their period counterparts. Those 'osses worked like the devil on short rations, little or no veterinary care, and no parasite control program. Needless to say, there weren't many "round barreled" horses on the picket line.

As far as positioning is concerned: It has been my experience that most recreational horsemen (and women) place their saddle too far forward. It is critical that there is adequate space between the leading edge of the bars (or the points of an English tree) to allow the horse's scapula (shoulder blade) to rotate freely.

The '59 McClellan was essentially a center-fire rigged saddle (though the term didn't exist then) and it did indeed fit a good many typical saddle horses of the period (the M1864--which has somewhat differently shaped bars--was better still).

Meaning no disrespect, I would be most appreciative if volcav would provide a reference to support his assertion regarding "The correct way to put the surcingle on ..." I am unaware of any official government publication or manual of the period that specifies how to saddle/unsaddle and properly adjust and pack the McClellan equipments (Congdon's Cavalry Compendium was not an official publication). Further, if you procured a new reproduction Federal issue M1859 surcingle for "less than fifty dollars," I'd be willing to bet you a very good pint of stout that it is not authentic.

So am I the only one who sees the "elephant in the room"? If one intends to attempt to authentically replicate the persona and material culture of the Civil War cavalryman, there are certain things that cannot be modified; you must learn to adapt and work with them as-is. Would you lop off a foot of a musket barrel because it would make it easier to carry? And please don't speak of "field expedient mods"--"It's somethin' a sojer mighta done" is the last defense of the True FARB. One should seek what was typical and common, rather than the exception to the rule. Therefore, you should obtain the most authentic reproduction equipage available and learn to deal with it (they did). It seems to me that the solution is to seek a horse that fits the tack, rather than attempting to somehow modify the tack to fit the horse ("history aside"). Square peg, round hole.

Not trying to start a flame war here, but I believe this is the Authentic Campaigners Forum, is it not?

Keep asking the questions. Knowledge Is Power.

~Aden

[Ronnie Tucker]

Re: Saddle question

In regard to saddle fit, a 1904 model McClellan is four and a half inches at the gullet. Was the 1859 McClellan of the same dimensions? The reason I ask is, I have a reproduction 1859 tree that is wider and does not fit a high withered horse properly. Is this saddle tree not right or what? The 1904 tree is alright.

I was told that this 1859 reproduction was called a Thoroughbred tree, supposedly would fit a high withered horse such as a Walking Horse, Saddlebred, Thoroughbred, etc.

Ronnie Tucker
7th Tenn. Cavalry

[volcav]

Re: Saddle question

The Unpleasant Truth:


Meaning no disrespect, I would be most appreciative if volcav would provide a reference to support his assertion regarding "The correct way to put the surcingle on ..." I am unaware of any official government publication or manual of the period that specifies how to saddle/unsaddle and properly adjust and pack the McClellan equipments (Congdon's Cavalry Compendium was not an official publication). Further, if you procured a new reproduction Federal issue M1859 surcingle for "less than fifty dollars," I'd be willing to bet you a very good pint of stout that it is not authentic.

~Aden

For a quick start of references I'll direct you to the picture posted in this thread of the Civil War cavalryman standing next to his horse. Maybe my eyes decieve me but I believe his surcingle is behind his girth.

I'd buy pint of stout whether I'm right or wrong just for the good conversation and a chance to learn something new and share what little I know. I'm open to learning new information. That's why I'm here.

I've found other references over the years about placement of the surcingle behind the girth. I'll see if I can find them again. I started researching placement of the surcingle because of the problem I was having with rubbing a sore spot on my horse when I put the surcingle in front of the girth. If you have documentation showing to place it elsewhere I'd be glad to see it.

[Tom Craig]

Re: Saddle question

In regard to saddle fit, a 1904 model McClellan is four and a half inches at the gullet. Was the 1859 McClellan of the same dimensions? The reason I ask is, I have a reproduction 1859 tree that is wider and does not fit a high withered horse properly. Is this saddle tree not right or what? The 1904 tree is alright.

I was told that this 1859 reproduction was called a Thoroughbred tree, supposedly would fit a high withered horse such as a Walking Horse, Saddlebred, Thoroughbred, etc.

Ronnie Tucker
7th Tenn. Cavalry

As someone else has said here, our modern horses are "calorically enhanced" compared to their CW ancestors, but that said, I know that original trees ride and fit differently than most modern trees. As I understand it, the vast majority of Mac trees at this point are coming from one or two sources, and those trees are of indifferent quality.

A couple of the fellas in the 1st ME have been working on building accurate trees, and what we have seen thus far is that the original trees seem to be a better fit for many of the horses we've experimented with (Disclaimer: we haven't used any of these trees yet, just set them on the horse's back etc). One horse in particular, a Standardbred with a pretty average sized back, fit the saddle perfectly, and the shape of the tree appeared to entirely miss the area that is prone to being soar.

Certainly not hard an fast evidence, but interesting. I think the biggest issue we have in determining fit is general ignorance. We don't have enough original trees to play with, we have even less properly made repro trees, we have a wide variety of horse sizes and shapes, and a lot of us out there really don't know all we need to know about how saddles should fit.

Take care,
Tom Craig
1st Maine Cavalry

[T.Kern]

Re: Saddle question

Well, I'm glad to see T.A.F.K.N., Mr. Nichols, still has some interest in cavalry. Ronnie the dimensions for a CW Mac was not the same as '04. There were variations but I have yet to see an original that wide. Thoroughbred Tree? I'd say you got took, there is no such thing. It's just what some flim flam man is selling that he calls that thing. Many of the repros have "quarter horse" bars rather than being a copy of originals. As stated there is a void in quality trees being reproduced now.

As for fit, many of these post refer to modern saddles and modern terms, congdon's is about the only place where it says how to saddle using a mac. Fit is three fingers back from the point of the shoulder. The girth strap goes inside out through the girth ring. The surcingle, if not used as a irregular breast strap, goes in rear of the girth with the webbing on the belly not on the seat (as most re enactors think it's to comfort their lazy ass, it's not, it's to comfort the horse's belly) the buckle on the near side in the hollow of the side. I slightly incline the girth to the front, which is not mentioned.

As for Mosby's men, an inspection from fall 1864 says, they were entirely equipped with federal gear. Now I don't think it would be uncommon for CS and civilian tack to show up as well considering the number of guys who came out for some fun while home on leave or a local boy going along, as first and accounts describe. If you like Mosby why did you not come to the Mosby program at Welbourne manor in May?
regards,
Todd Kern

[volcav]

Re: Saddle question

Todd,
Thanks for the Congdon's reference. That's good information. Do you know a good source to get a copy of that? I'd like to add one to my personal library.

[KyCavalier]

Re: Saddle question

Todd,

I don't see that the surcingle in the original picture posted looks like it is strapped onto his saddle as you say it should be (web side down, under belly with the buckle being in the hollow of the side). It looks to me as though it is exactly opposite of that description or that is a very wide, thin leather strap (coming up and over from the hat shadow). It looks to me as though this horse is wearing it exactly as you say not to.

I am not questioning your historical accuracy as I know you are very knowledgable about all areas of CW cavalry. And due to this being brought up many years ago, because of your description, I strap mine that way. It could be just this one photo. Or it could be I am not seeing it correctly, but it does appear to be exactly opposite as you describe it should be. I will read Cogdon's again. As a matter of fact I may have gotten the copy I have from you many years ago.

But, as Mr. Nichols has stated you can't use that as a reference since it is not an official gov. source of the time. So, that means only about 1000 Cogdons were produced/sold and everyone did what they wanted/told to do. So noone here can say for certain how one (surcingle) should be rigged, since the only one that says how can't be used as "official." On-the-other-hand if more than 10,000 were reproduced/sold then I would say someone was using it, or they were wasting precious money on something useless (well, OK many still do today).

I am asking to learn, not to be ugly in anyway. You and Mr. Nichols are both respected in the community.

Thanks,
Tony Downs
Chiefs Mess

[GeraldTodd]

Inference

There's no official cavalry manual that states that the canteen is worn on the person, or otherwise - BUT, there ARE regimental general orders to that effect. If the men weren't putting their canteens on their saddles, why would someone scold them about it?

Captain Congdon wrote his compendium in response to something. He was an officer serving in the field and felt a need to compile a all-in-one manual for enlisted men that described their duties, the use of their equipment, and the obligatory Articles of War - yet he regurgitates the manual of arms from the 41 manual verbatim. In that a serving cavalry officer compiled into a compendium what he was probably practicing in the field makes Congdon's better than "official" in my opinion.

The "official" manual, ie the 1841 Cavalry Tactics (Poinsett's) isn't the end all answer to "how they did it" either. CW era regiments were organized very differently, the equipment was very different, and the 41 manual, despite being printed right up to 1865, hadn't been updated since the Hall carbine was first issued.

Yet, it's obvious that the cavalry used the 41 manual and adapted as best they could to the differences. For instance, note the attached image. The man holds the Sharp's carbine at carry arms in a way only described in the 41 manual (and repeated by Congdon and others).

It's not "field expedience" it's necessity. The "official" manuals were outdated and did not reflet the equipments the men had in their hands - works like Congdon's tell us how they dealt with that. Just because it didn't come from the government printing office doesn't mean it's not a valid and important piece of evidence.

[neocelt]

Re: Saddle question

Gerry's hypothesis is reasonable and partially supported by the historical record. I don't mean to be contentious or split hairs here, but I believe the following clarification is in order:

My point was that as historians, we need to be careful in our choice of language. In this context, I believe the use of the term "correct" implies "authorized" or "official" and lest it be taken as a "given" that such a methodology existed as it applies to the employment of the surcingle with the McClellan equipments, I thought it best to point out that there is indeed no "correct" way to perform this function, per regulations. Without official sanctioning, regimental commanders were indeed left to their own devices. But as a surcingle had been included with every type of US Army mounted service equipments since the raising and equipping of the First Dragoons in 1833 (and was also in common use by civilians), it presumably posed little problem for them.

I was first introduced to Congdon's Cavalry Compendium nearly 20 years ago by a pard from Iowa who had run across a copy in the Iowa State University Library Special Collections and generously shared it with me, and I believe I am responsible for it's general introduction to the Eastern cavalry community around that time. If you have an umpteenth-generation photocopy of the manual, it might well bear the Iowa State U stamp. I think Congdon's is a phenomenal resource, and I'd love to see it reprinted (a project that shared a good deal of space on my "back burner" for many years), so I am in no way disparaging the utility of this period compilation.

Some years ago, I went to the trouble of searching out James A. Congdon's personal papers but they proved to be of little help. He was not a professional military man; rather he was apparently a political appointee, and his service with the 12th Pennsylvania Cavalry could be described as "adequate." He was passed over for promotion after the colonel resigned (prior to the regiment leaving its mustering camp) and he was elevated to temporary command of the regiment (without benefit of promtion) by virtue of attrition rather than merit during the Antietam campaign. His personal correspondence is essentially a litany of complaints about the inferiority of his superior officers and grousing about his being deserving of promotion--and his ongoing efforts to correct this "error." In this regard he was fairly typical--he simply saw the service as a stepping stone to personal advancement. Don't get me wrong: His service was certainly honorable, just not inspired.

Congdon was ultimately advanced to lieutenant-colonel and again placed in temporary command of the regiment (by virtue of attrition) in the fall of 1864; he resigned his commission in March '65, before the war's inevitable end.

The regiment had received a "veteran's furlough" for re-enlisting as a body at the close of the Gettysburg campaign, and it is presumably during this period of R&R that Congdon drafted his little compendium (date of publication is 1864--not much time to allow broad distribution). My hypothesis--and it is indeed simply informed conjecture--is that he did this primarily to "pad his resume" as it were and lend credence to his quest for promotion (and perhaps to make a little pocket change while he was at it). Again, I didn't know the man; I'm simply deducing this after having evaluated the content and tone of his personal correspondence.

The McClellan equipments only entered the service in general distribution after the war's commencement, hence no official treatise on their use was ever drafted or issued. It is true that such particulars as the packing of the saddle were generally left to the discretion of regimental commanders in any case, and these guidelines were disseminated through the publication of general and special orders. Such directives were accepted military practice, and while they do occasionally seem to constititute "scolding" to correct unauthorized or inappropriate practices, they are usually simply intended to be instructional.

In three decades of research, I have only managed to unearth a few of these types of orders regarding the packing of the horse equipments, and I believe all relate to Regular US Cavalry regiments. Hence, peripheral primary sources such as Congdon's Cavalry Compendium, notations in period correspondence, inspection reports, and of course photographs, are all absolutely essential in divining what was actually done in the field. And as this varied from regiment to regiment (and even within a given regiment at different periods), I don't think we can definitively characterize one particular method of saddling or packing the McClellan equipments as being "correct."

I hope this helps to clarify my previous comments.

~Aden

[Curt Schmidt]

Congdon trivia.. long.

Hallo!

Unrelated JAmes A Congdon (1835-1902) trivia...

Due to his standing in the Philadelphia Pennsyvlania ethnic and native German community, William Frishmuth was given the political nod from Goveror Curtin to raise a regiment of cavalry, and was appointed colonel on February 7, 1861 of the "Curtin Hussars." (Initially, briefly the 113th Regiment PV,, then the 12th PVC.

Frishmuth was imediately challenged to raise the required number of recruits from an already somewhat tapped out pool. After a freeze, he had to open to regional and ethnic recruitment to across the state.

On January 13, 1862, Governor Curtin, announced that any new regiment that did not meet the staffing level of 840 by the next day would be broken up or consolidated.

On January 21st, the regiment's chaplain circulated a petition that on eof the majors-in-waiting, James Congdon, NOT be appointed to any position in the regiment.
Congdon, a lawyer from Lancaster, had obtained his position by promising to provide three companies but had not produced even one man, that he had been awol for several weeks, and that he possessed a disagreeable manner and personality.
The petition was signed by 18 officers.
Frishmuth stayed out, until he was pressured on February 18 to write to Harrisburg to have Congdon's appointment to major revoked.

That proved to be a mistake. Congdon not only had had three months prior service as a captain in the infantry, but was married to the daughter of William Bishop who had declined Lincoln's offer to be the U.S. attorney general.

After a well written defense, and with a wink-and-a-nod from his father-in-law, on march 8, Frishmuth wrote to Governor Curtin that after a thorough investigation Congdon was clelared of charges. On April 28th, before heading South, Congdon was mustered in as the regiment's second major.

Congdon was unhappy with what he saw as his fellow officer's lackadaisical attitutudes toward soldiering, firmness in discipline, and pride.
The men not so sure Congdon was not priggish martinet.

Congdon wrote several letters of scathing attacks on the 12th's leadership, complaining about the colonel not having drilled the regiment for an hour because he could not, and for the number of "bawds" (prostitutes) disguised as wives with him, and for his receiving costyl gifts form the regimental sutler.
Condgon also hated the Lt. Col. ( Jacob Kohler), as an ignorant lager beer selling duthcman who drank excessively and was instrumental in bebauching others- by haivng barrels of beer sent from Philadelphia and selling it to fello wofficers.
He also hated the First Major, (Darius Titus) as knowing nothing and for being an old coward.

Frishmuth would be Congdon's first target through a "letter". Frishmuth was reported to have borrow money and pawn personal jewelry to float the regiment whil it was waiting to be formed and taken into service. When part of the money was to have come form a political favor chit, Frishman resigned when unable to get a hearing and to avoid the humiliation of being cashiered.

Once in active campaigning, Congdon continued his pen campaign to secure a promotion by promoting his own merits or tearing down his fellow officers.
He also said that he was withholding charges agaisnt the new colonel
(Lewis Pierce) until the timing was better.
And was looking for stuff on the new Lt. Col. Moss., such as Moss recommending a friend for one of the six Lieutenant slots Congdon believed should go to men "in house."

Somehow Pierce got wind of Congdon's plot, and had him arrested, and restricted to town, pending charges. Congdon faced a court-martial at the end of November 1862 but was acquitted.

Congdon's stratregy came forward when Major Titus was arrested for court-martial for haivng advanced his command into the enemy withiout forward pickets or flank guards. Surprised, by the Confederates, Titus became scared and bewildered and ran off leaving the regiment on it's own. At first forgottn, Congdon brought it up again seven months later. And he heaped it on, reporting Moss for keeping six or eight horses (instead of two) on at public expense- and for haivng three servants (a cook and two hostlers) instead of one.

By the time he was done, eight commissioned offers were under arrest and more were pending. Fighting around Winchester would postpone the internal fights.

On July 21, 1863, the officers of the 12th PVC sent a petition to Governor Curtin asking that 3rd Major William Bell be given the LT-COl. slot in place of the soon-to-be discharged Joseph Moss.
Congdon, wanting the slot for himself was furious, and accused Colonel Pierce and Major Bell of being in cahoots and doing nothing to help First Major Titus.
Titus, the heir-appearant, and acting head, wrote in August to Curtin trying to block Bell's jump over BOTH him and Congdon. Titus said Bell had written a letter of resignation in order to avoid an inquest,, but when the board was cancelled he withdrew the resignation letter. And that Bell had gathered signatures on his petition by offering furloughs to the signers.

Being the colonel's ally helped, and Major Bell jumped over Titus and Congdon.

Sometime in late January 1864, Major Congdon assumed temporary command, and proceeded to rein the the laxness and excesses of his fellow officers.

Titus cam eup on another court-martial in February, 1864, trying to obtain a transfer to the Veterans Reserve Corps on a claim he had chronic irregular diarhhea. Congdon wanted him gone, and endorsed the transfer, but iut was quasheed over his head. Titus was court-martialled and discharged for "neglect of duty, conduct unbecoming of an officer, and conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline.

Not wasting a moment, Congdon pulled out an old petition signed by 15 of teh 12th's 24 officers endorsing him- or as Congdon wrote.. "The raskal was cornered and did not know what to do so did nothing..."

The loss of many Veteran Vounteers, and other issues saw the 12th decline to be held in no regard.

Tha tproved to be to Congdon's favor, and Congdon pooled friends and called in favors to get Colonel Pierce dismissed for "utter worthlessness and inefficiciency as an Officer." August 7, 1864. But Pierce called in every favor fo his own up to President Lincoln.
But while he was side-tracked in command of 1500 dismounted men, he did take the time to write his manual both the the extra money if not to prove he was more than a carping, ambitious, martinet.
But as the regiment retolled, Congdon was out on tempoary leave due to chronic diarrhea and nervous debiity."

Congdon was back in September, but the regiment was in shabbles. They were being inspected everyday after having been given the "devil" for half of the men without arms and the majority of the rest unserviceable for want of cleaning, many men with not even a single round in their box.

Just as Congdon whipped them back into a shape, a letter arrived saying COl.Pierce may be reinstated. To counter the threat, Congdon circulated an anti-Pierce petition. Congdon lost, and Pierce wqs reinstated in October.

But Congdon had enlisted the support of an outsider, a Cpatain named Marcus Reno. Reno wrote to Congdon that Governor would give Reno the colonelcy of the 12th IF Pierce could be gotten nrid of. AND, if that happened. Reno would then give the regiment over to Congdon as he had a brigade lined up.
Reno went to Sherman's head cavalryman, Alfred Torbert and calle din a favor- for him to champion Reno AND also based upon his good job of restoring the 12th giving Congdon its Lt-COl. slot.

Congdon waited patiently or not, for Pierce to make a mistake. But the first mistake was Congdon's. In November, Major Darling and some 7th Michigan Cavalry (Custer's) entered picket line. Congdon thught DArline was JOhn Mosby and stuck his revolver in his face.
Charges were not leveled immediately, but set aside for a better moment.

In December, Pierce again had screwed up and was mustered out for incompetency. Before he left, he had Congdon placed under arrest under unspecificed charges. Major Darling then came forth and field his charges.
Plus, the officers who had joined in signing Congdon's anti-Pierce petition, reversed themselves and sign a petition to give Pierce aother chance.

But the new year started even worse for Congdon. On January 5, 1865, the more savy and poitically connected Colonel Marcus Reno showed up in the 12th's camp haivng just been promoted from captain.
But true to his word, and machinations, Reno arrived with a Lt. COl's commission for Congdon and an end to arrest, charges dismissed, with pass to Harper's Ferry to muster in.
But by then Congdon felt used by Reno, and that realtionship faltered.

In the end, accumulated frustration, bitter disappointment, failure, arrest and confinment, court-martial, intrigues, politics, favors, plots, friends and foes, stabs in the back, physical health all added up to make a jaded, bitter, suspicious, paranoid, hostile man.

On February 27, 1865, he received word his wife was ill. He was granted a six day leave to return home. Three days later, Lt. Colonel James Congdon resigned his commission and returned to civilan life.

After the fact, he was brevetted Colonel and Brigadier General in March of 1865)

And perhaps not so suprisingly, is NUG credited with founding the American Chess Association.

Curt