Horse Breed

[Joni House]

Re: Horse Breed

Mr. Kern,
If you read my post more clearly you will see that I said the Virginia Roadster in the image was a "saddle horse", I did not say it was a saddlebred. I still believe that it has the confirmation of a saddle horse and not a T-bred, which tended to be thicker in the chest and broader around the barrell. The term saddlebred did not exist until the 1880s. The breed registry came into existance at that time and the founder of that organization was General John B. Castleman, who wrote on more than one occasion of the preference for Kentucky Saddle Horses by Civil War Generals. I only offered some information from a good articles from the American Saddlebred magazine, which I thought some might find interesting. I did not specifically name Traveler, however, I believe that the evidence of "saddle horses" ridden by numerous generals and high ranking officers speaks for itself. Additionally, you might wish to read the memoirs of Lucas Broadhead, who was the farm manager for Airdrie Farm in Woodford County, Kentucky. During his many visits to that farm General George Armstrong Custer stated often that the "Kentucky Saddle Horse" was highly prized for its gait and endurance by many of his contemporaries in the Civil War. I would encourage you to go to primary sources when researching "Kentucky Saddle Horses." Of particular interest would be the Airdrie Farm collection which is at the Kentucky Historical Society. That farm bred "saddle horses" and looking at their sales ledger would be most enlightening to you. I believe the initial question was what type of horse is period correct and the American Saddlebred is certainly that. Additionally, the saddle horse is not what some would specifically call a "gaited horse." This is often a misconception about the breed. Although they will perform a rack the gait that was most prized during the 19th century was the long ground covering trot. Further, Sir, I rarely make baseless assumptions and most any comment I give on this forum is grounded in primary sources, not secondary sources.
Thank You,
J. House

[Tom Craig]

Re: Horse Breed

Cool pics, no doubt, but all three of them the riders appear to be holding another horse, but I don't see any wagon or gun rigging. What do you suppose that indicates in relation to the saber?

I would actually suggest that the trooper was riding with his sabre attached to the saddle. Chris mentions that it is the only picture that he has ever seen of the practice, and I would agree. That said, there is a growing body of evidence that points to sabres on the saddle as common practice in 1864-65 in the Eastern theater, among volunteer troops. It isn't photographed, but how many photos exist of cavalry on campaign in that time frame?

Don't believe me?...Check out the regimental order books in the National Archives. There is also a reference from Sidney Morris Davis (6th US) who was jealous of the volunteers with their sabres on their saddles. Those are just two sources, but there are more.

Take care,
Tom Craig
1st Maine Cavalry

[T.Kern]

Re: Horse Breed

Mr. Kern,
If you read my post more clearly you will see that I said the Virginia Roadster in the image was a "saddle horse", I did not say it was a saddlebred. I still believe that it has the confirmation of a saddle horse and not a T-bred, which tended to be thicker in the chest and broader around the barrell. The term saddlebred did not exist until the 1880s. The breed registry came into existance at that time and the founder of that organization was General John B. Castleman, who wrote on more than one occasion of the preference for Kentucky Saddle Horses by Civil War Generals. I only offered some information from a good articles from the American Saddlebred magazine, which I thought some might find interesting. I did not specifically name Traveler, however, I believe that the evidence of "saddle horses" ridden by numerous generals and high ranking officers speaks for itself. Additionally, you might wish to read the memoirs of Lucas Broadhead, who was the farm manager for Airdrie Farm in Woodford County, Kentucky. During his many visits to that farm General George Armstrong Custer stated often that the "Kentucky Saddle Horse" was highly prized for its gait and endurance by many of his contemporaries in the Civil War. I would encourage you to go to primary sources when researching "Kentucky Saddle Horses." Of particular interest would be the Airdrie Farm collection which is at the Kentucky Historical Society. That farm bred "saddle horses" and looking at their sales ledger would be most enlightening to you. I believe the initial question was what type of horse is period correct and the American Saddlebred is certainly that. Additionally, the saddle horse is not what some would specifically call a "gaited horse." This is often a misconception about the breed. Although they will perform a rack the gait that was most prized during the 19th century was the long ground covering trot. Further, Sir, I rarely make baseless assumptions and most any comment I give on this forum is grounded in primary sources, not secondary sources.
Thank You,
J. House

That generalization, that it is a " Kentucky saddle horse" pictured (i. e. pre-saddlebred) is still baseless. As it is just a horse, and could easily be a starved out blooded horse...and I have seen plenty that look like that, barrel or not. Nor do I remember the "saddlebred " having such a large jug head. If you want to be specific, the saddlebred as it is bred to look today is not period correct, and by you own words not recognized till 1880. I will say though, many of the less typey ones look fine. As you point out in the pic, a big head and no set tail can help in a period appearance.
I stand by my assessment that I have yet to see a general during the war, first hand accounts, say they preferred Kentucky saddle horse. Also the assertions by Castleman come after the fact and can be viewed as rather self serving. Just as the claim by the registry that Traveller was a saddlebred. Using that example of poorly supported history (why I brought up traveller in the first place) is my basis for not completely trusting the statements made by those associated with the association...because they are not objective but self serving.
So give me the names of generals who purposely rode and sought out Kentucky saddle horses. Try to give me accounts during the war rather than questionable 20 year later claims that may have been written for less than objective reasons. As you point out, good Sales, could be one reason to inflate and romanticize the breeds history. Please, sources other than "so and so claimed " would be nice (I.E.Broadhead), maybe the general's own words, rather than ones written 20 years later that might have ulterior motives. Nor have I seen where Custer mentions them during the war, somewhere I think he mentions blooded horses he rode. Not sure can't remember, since I'm no Custer scholar and nor do I remember the type of horse he shot in the back of the head while hunting either.
The fact is many of the claims made by that association, and those who stood to gain for them, come from post war assertions.. which brings their true value as a primary source for the war into question. I am sure some of these type of horses were used , as any thing that could walk was, but I call into issue the claims that they were sought out and preferred during the war. I wait for the primary accounts to support your thesis.
SIncerely,
Todd Kern

P.S. while we are at it, there were numerous inaccuracies pictured in the reenactment photos you posted, not so much with the horse as with the equipment used. I would not have been so quick to post those with the historical mistakes.

[Joni House]

Re: Horse Breed

Mr. Kern,
I have had several pms telling me not to bother discussing this any further with you as you ar somewhat of a "jerk" their words - not mine as I don't know you, but given the tone of your posts I am inclined to agree with them. I do not engage often on these forums as individuals like you make me more and more disenchanted with those who live to espouse history on the internet and in the vulgar manner which you do. Thank you also for pointing all the things wrong with my impression. I'm sure you are an excellent authority on both history and reenacting. Please forgive my meager attempt to have an enjoyable discussion on what surely is your realm.
I'll bow out gracefully as I am not inclined to spend my time hacking at others.
Joni House

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Horse Breed

Alright now folks,.....Moderator badge "on" ....

Work with me here folks! This forum is for sharing information. No one has the market cornered on all knowledge and, no one has the "right", "best" or, "perfect" impression. Also, history is never really "past". Its actually very fluid and changing. I have found that what is "fact-certain" to one individual" is totally incorrect to another. Guess what?....thats what makes it interesting. Yet, often we find that later "both" people were right! So keep an open mind. This is supposed to be "fun"!

There are other ways to discuss/debate documentation without calling someone down. I am also certain there is a better, lets say "nicer" way to ask for someone to provide some support to their ideas and then, sometimes I would suggest its even better.... (certainly easier), to let a person's comments (ignorant or otherwise) stand "alone" on its own merits. In other words, like my mom used to say, "Often silence is the best answer."

WARNING: I strongly encourage, in fact seek out, people posting their thoughts, ideas, questions and yes, theories here but, we WILL keep these discussions civil, non-personal and to the subject matter. While I am happy to see lively debate and disagreement, when people enter the realm of personal accusations on another individual's person, impression or name calling I promise you I will get involved and terminate the thread or take other proper actions on the offending parties.



Ken R Knopp

[Mark Choate]

Re: Horse Breed

Ken,

Very well said, handled and done!

Thank you for doing a splendid job in your capacity as moderator.

Mark Choate
7th TN. Cav.

[Clsinclair]

Re: Horse Breed

Are there any documentation for App's? The horse in my avatar is a walker. I usually ride a 33 year old Quarter horse. Heck, he could be a real son!!!!!! :)

[GBaylor]

Re: Horse Breed

Okay,
I'm going to add my two cents in here. While Mr. Kern will never win a Nobel Prize for diplomacy, he is a good historian.

As a historian, you have to take the information you have a determine its validity, often looking into the motivations of the source of the information. An example of the phenominon is Bell Wiley's assertions in the "Life of Johnny Reb" that all Confederate soldiers were clothed in rags, woven, and sewn by wives and sweethearts at home. This was a prepetuation of the "Lost Cause" mythology that sprang from many post war Southern writers to explain away the causes of defeat.However, because of diligent research by historians like Les Jenson, who reviewed objective facts,ie, photographs, government records, and existing uniforms. We now have a entirely different view of how the common soldier was clothed.

I think that is what Mr.Kern was driving toward. Looking at objective evidence to support thesises, and not heresay. I disagree somewhat with what Ken says about this forum being just for fun. There are other forums for that. This should be a place for serious discussions about historical facts (I guess that can be fun too).

Respectfully,
John Sweeney
Valley Light Horse

[T.Kern]

Re: Horse Breed

Mr. Kern,
I have had several pms telling me not to bother discussing this any further with you as you ar somewhat of a "jerk" their words - not mine as I don't know you, but given the tone of your posts I am inclined to agree with them. I do not engage often on these forums as individuals like you make me more and more disenchanted with those who live to espouse history on the internet and in the vulgar manner which you do. Thank you also for pointing all the things wrong with my impression. I'm sure you are an excellent authority on both history and reenacting. Please forgive my meager attempt to have an enjoyable discussion on what surely is your realm.
I'll bow out gracefully as I am not inclined to spend my time hacking at others.
Joni House

Dear Joni,
I am sorry you took offense at my calling for primary documentation, it was not a personal attack, as yours was. I have long thought it dishonest of that registry to claim what they do, so maybe jumped on it a little hard. Those that think I am a jerk are usually the ones who get caught peddling reenactorisms and unable to support their claims with primary documentation, and then I am a jerk because I won't let the, "everybody knows", slide. As to the un-authentic stuff, I was not speaking of you but some of the other pics, I thought you looked fine.
I have to disagree with Ken to some extent, history is not always fluid. When things are clearly documented by primary accounts, better yet by several of them, I would call that set in stone as a rule. While there may be exceptions to the rule, the rule is set. Example; We have a letter from the war dept. that clearly states they could not make anything at Clarkesville until they got sheet metal for the rollers for the buckles, which they say is used on almost everything they make. Production was near stopping. That is clear, the buckles used for almost everything was the roller buckle at that point. That is the rule. The exception would be early on when they purchased whatever was available from commercial suppliers or the brass buckle also made but not thought highly of. Since this is the authentic campaigner I think when we see or hear historical inaccuracies or holes in the supporting evidence for the espoused thesis we need to point them out, therefore enlightening the audience who might not know otherwise. If we do not it is poor history, just as "Chariots of the Gods". Then we have no more historical worth than all the other mainstream people in funny clothes who continue to mislead the unsuspecting public. Is it not our duty to do justice for those who can no longer tell their story?
Best regards, Todd Kern

[T.Kern]

Re: Horse Breed

I would actually suggest that the trooper was riding with his sabre attached to the saddle. Chris mentions that it is the only picture that he has ever seen of the practice, and I would agree. That said, there is a growing body of evidence that points to sabres on the saddle as common practice in 1864-65 in the Eastern theater, among volunteer troops. It isn't photographed, but how many photos exist of cavalry on campaign in that time frame?

Don't believe me?...Check out the regimental order books in the National Archives. There is also a reference from Sidney Morris Davis (6th US) who was jealous of the volunteers with their sabres on their saddles. Those are just two sources, but there are more.

Take care,
Tom Craig
1st Maine Cavalry

Tom,
I would not be eager to say it was common practice for volunteers. We do not know how many actually did it or who or the amount of exposure the witness had in seeing it done- did he see a company, regiment, or different regiments? While it seems there is evidence that some may have, there is still a great amount of evidence showing it worn on the belt. The sabre was even still issued with the belt. Nor do we know how they did it, was it thrown over the pommel when at rest but still attached to the belt that one would carry it on their person, as was done with the carbine or canteen at times? If it is attached, as it appears, where are all the other sabres on the saddles? Why do we not see any others attached to the saddles if this was common? So while it may have been done some I am hesitant to say it was the rule. Notice there is a carbine on the saddle in the pic ,but not in a place where one could still ride, do we say they attached carbines? .Nor do I want to give fuel to the farbs who do it now because they are too lazy and would prefer to burden their horses with everything
regards, Todd Kern.

[Tom Craig]

Re: Horse Breed

Tom,
I would not be eager to say it was common practice for volunteers. We do not know how many actually did it or who or the amount of exposure the witness had in seeing it done- did he see a company, regiment, or different regiments? While it seems there is evidence that some may have, there is still a great amount of evidence showing it worn on the belt. The sabre was even still issued with the belt. Nor do we know how they did it, was it thrown over the pommel when at rest but still attached to the belt that one would carry it on their person, as was done with the carbine or canteen at times? If it is attached, as it appears, where are all the other sabres on the saddles? Why do we not see any others attached to the saddles if this was common? So while it may have been done some I am hesitant to say it was the rule. Notice there is a carbine on the saddle in the pic ,but not in a place where one could still ride, do we say they attached carbines? .Nor do I want to give fuel to the farbs who do it now because they are too lazy and would prefer to burden their horses with everything
regards, Todd Kern.

Todd,

I do agree that one should be careful about generalizing, especially in an area where farbs are looking for an excuse to do something...that is not just a cavalry issue, and I do think "we" in this end of the hobby sometimes go to opposite extremes to avoid doing things that have been generalized by the farbs and overdone.

I don't have most of the documentation on the sabres on the saddle issue. John Tobey and Andy German in the 1st Maine have been doing the research and have come up with quite a lot of interesting info on what was common (although not universal) practice in the Fed. cav. in the East. Perhaps one of those two gents can weigh in here with some documentation.

I do know that there isn't good documentation on how it was done, and we in the 1st ME have done a little experiementing with it this season, with no consensus on one functional way to do it. Without clear documentation of "this is how we all hung our sabres from our saddles in the war" all of our efforts will only be experiemental archeology. It doesn't hurt to faithfully recreate an authentic practice with authentic materials...that's what we're all trying to do on this end of the hobby.

As an additional nugget, and again not to encourage the farbs, but there was a general order issued, I believe it was 1863, that prohibited the men from strapping their carbines to their saddles. Apparently there was a PA outfit (again, either John T. or Andy G have the full documentation on this) that had many of its horses captured while they were in reserve for picket, and lost all of their carbines because they were strapped to their saddles. Certainly the carbines MAY have just been there as the troopers didn't want to hold on to them while off duty, but a general order against the practice suggests that this unit wasn't the only one doing it.

Ken suggested that history is fluid. I don't think that history is fluid, but our understanding of it is. Certainly some things are documented and black and white, but there are also a lot of things that we all (myself included) think we know as gospel, but come to find out might not be so ironclad.

Take care,
Tom Craig
1st Maine Cavalry

[John E. Tobey]

Re: Horse Breed

The only information I have about "junk on the saddle" pertains to Federal Cavalry.

As Todd has already pointed out earlier in this thread, you need several primary accounts to make valid interpretations -- in the case of sabers on saddles, we have enough documentation to write a small monograph. Interestingly, it's all 1863 or later.

Anecdotal statements were made by Davis, Preston, Crowninshield, Ide, McGee, Whittaker, Tobie, Gause, just to name a few -- most or all of these have been posted before.

We have official documents like AGO Circular 44 dated June 9, 1864, page 17:

“If the saber is worn, it should be fastened to the saddle under the stirrup leather.”

In fact, it seems that troopers took this practice to the extreme, particularly after Circular 44 was issued. I've found inspection reports making negative comments about the practice during dress parades and there was the inevitable reaction by the Army in forbidding sabers on saddles during inspections and parades.

We have period manuals recommending the practice, like the Kautz's 1865 Customs of Service, paragraph 694.

Kautz didn't always dispense good advice, however, and this brings us to Todd's question about attaching carbines to saddles. In the same paragraph, Kautz suggests mounting the carbine to the saddle. Troopers did indeed do this during the war, and learned the consequences:

“The enemy…found the 8th New York in the Gap with their horses unbridled and many of the men asleep having been out all day and all night. They charged the 8th with their usual yell, thus stampeding the horses… Most of the men had their carbines strapped to their saddles, and of course, these went away with the horses, which was the cause of a General Order’s being issued forbidding this practice.” (Ide 205)

And then there is the question of canteens and haversacks on saddles...wait a minute, the dinner bell just rang. :wink_smil

John Tobey

[LindaTrent]

Re: Horse Breed

This has been a great thread! But I have a few comments that I'd like to add. First, I agree that horses back then did not tend to be referred to by breed, but by function. I've seen such period terms as general purpose, runners or gallopers, Roadsters or trotters, draught or omnibus. Horses were also known by bloodlines. A horse might be called a "Sir Archy" or a "Morgan" or a "Steel Dust"...

There was only one--yes ONE--breed registry (or more accurately "stud book") in existence during the Civil War years, and that was the Thoroughbred (or "blood horse," as they were also commonly known), and that was only because of their commodity value as race horses--documentation was critical.

Hi Aden, If you're referring to the English stud book, yes. But the first American Stud book was printed as such in 1868 by Col. S.D. Bruce. Granted Col. Bruce was collecting bloodlines for about 30 some years, and he started publishing his information in his newspaper "The Turf, Field and Farm" in 1865, but volume 1 of the stud book wasn't published in book form until 1868 and even then that was only A-L. The remainder was published at a later date. But it is the work of Col. Bruce that went on to be the official record of the American Jockey Club.

Keeneland Library is a great place to visit if you're ever in the Lexington area. They have all the stud books, and tons of other primary source material, and the librarians are very knowledgeable, nice to work with, and well... just enthusiastic about the fact that Hank and I had been asked to portray the Bruces at the reenactment of the Woodburn sale of 1869. :D

Now the Morgan horse had a book with lineages published in 1857, that book was the work of Daniel Chipman Linsley, and is found on Google Books Morgan Horses The section on pedigrees begins on page 259 (scroll down past a couple blank pages). While this did not go on to be stud book #1 of the Morgan Horse association, it is recognized by them as a true recording of their bloodlines.

Finally, "The type of horse that is the modern quarter horse was not bred during the mid-1800's. I'm referring to the wide bodied horses being bred today. Those horses are actually a 1900's evolution of selective breeding for ranch work first and then competition later."

I'd have to respectfully disagree. I had an old mare who wasn't supposed to be bred because she had an extended hernia and the vet was afraid that as the baby grew it would burst. Anyway, to make a long story short she had a baby one day and no one knew she was even pregnant. Apparently she was in one field and a draft horse stallion was in another. They managed to find a hole in the fence (top wire was still attached), she backed a little under and well, neither ever had to leave his/her own field. :secret: What resulted was a dandy big baby that would have made the perfect 19th century general purpose horse. It was capable of light draught, pulling a wagon, and being ridden all in one.

I've always believed that farmers back in the early days, especially those who couldn't afford to keep a lot of horses but just needed one good one would breed a riding horse to a draught horse and get a happy middle of the road kinda critter.

And while we're on the topic of Quarter Horses, here's a period description: from the Ohio Agricultural Report, 1857 had this to say.

In the adjoining vicinity of Fairfield county [Ohio], was introduced the horse known as 'Printer,' a longish bodied, low and very muscular animal, a breed which old Mr. Van Meter says he knew when a boy in Virginia, and which he says are nearly identical with the present Morgan stock. Many of these animals were excellent quarter nags--good in a short race, but with too little bone for the muscle.

And finally, the Appaloosa.

Only recently was I told that Appaloosas were an uncommon breed in America in the mid-late 19th century, but I am not sure. I can't recall having seen photos of appys from the period. Not sure about Palaminos either

Sam, I have been unable to really document the Appaloosa to anywhere but the Nez Perce in the era. I contacted the Appy club years ago when I did an article on horses for the Citizens Companion and they told me that there is no documentation of the breed being in the east until 1877. Francis Haines' book Appaloosa, The Spotted Horse in Art and History, states that only a small number of the Nez Perce herds were the swift war horses and these were not for sale or trade. The largest number of these herds were pack horses and 'mounts for women and old people.' The book says that in 1877, following the defeat of Chief Joseph, the Nez Perce 'ponies' were taken to Fort Keogh and sold to buyers in the east.

Now there were European horses that resembled the Appaloosa spots, but these were not Appaloosas, which can be distinguished by a look in the eye, the tail, etc.

For the Palomino, I've not been able to document it by that word, but a light sorrel with a flaxen mane and tail may fit the bill. Dunno.

Linda.

[Outrider]

Re: Horse Breed

"I've always believed that farmers back in the early days, especially those who couldn't afford to keep a lot of horses but just needed one good one would breed a riding horse to a draught horse and get a happy middle of the road kinda critter."

I agree completely and would only add that I also believe they would perhaps breed for desirable traits found in neighboring horses, crossing this with that to end up with what they might consider to be the best all around horse for their purposes. I can easily imagine many more "crosses" than not, for the average farmer or anyone using horses in thier work. I have seen alot of grade horses produce very fine looking animals given the right combination of traits from sire and dam even if neither one posesses anything in thier conformation or appearance to suggest any "good blood".

Also thank you Mrs. Trent for posting the "quarter nags" quote. I have seen this before along time ago but could not remember where it was. Somewhere and I will try to find it . I also read an account from , I believe, the early part of the 19th century or perhaps before describing a horse race in Virginia and the horses being referred to as "fine quarter milers"

[LindaTrent]

Re: Horse Breed

Also thank you Mrs. Trent for posting the "quarter nags" quote. I have seen this before along time ago but could not remember where it was. Somewhere and I will try to find it . I also read an account from , I believe, the early part of the 19th century or perhaps before describing a horse race in Virginia and the horses being referred to as "fine quarter milers"

It's not Virginia, but here's a quarter mile race in Kentucky. I offer it for its humor as much as anything. It's a whole chapter. By the way it was published in 1850.

Here's a picture of my old foundation AQHA/FQHR mare (on the left). Now to me, if I were doing living history and someone asked me what breed she was I'd say something along the lines of she's just a farm horse. Of course when I'd say it it would sound nicer than it does electronically. ;) She has worn our original man's civilian saddle on a few occasions without getting sores or a sore back, though neither she nor I could use my original side saddle. It just didn't fit either one of us. :cry_smile

Linda.