Horse paperwork/logistics

[rbruno]

To All,
This question is based on a CS trooper and the use of his horse. My questions have to do with the logistics of appraising and ultimately reimbursing for a horse. My understanding is when a trooper was enlisted, his horse and equipment if was appraised and signed by two to three officers. He was then paid per month for the use of his horse. If the man was dismounted during service and given furloughed on horse detail, when he return to camp with a horse, the same process was done. If the horse was killed or disabled in action, he would then request to be reimbursed for the horse or lost personal equipment and sent to get another. Is this process in more or less accurate?
My question surrounds the logistics of the paperwork. Did the Adj or Capt of the Co. or another officer hold on to the original appraisal or was this the responsibility of the individual trooper? If not where were the documents kept? If the army moved on and the horse was left on the field, would they base the pay on the original appraisal or what a horse was worth when he was lost? What I am getting at there is a horse in '61 was cheaper then '64. I guess the trooper was responsible for the difference. I see the signature of the commanding officer on the form, but did the form then go up to the brigade, to division, to corp, and then to Richmond or would it be sent directly from the Adj or commanding officer. I have read the diary/memoires of the Adj of the 1st MD Cav and a couple of the Capts. but have not found anything relating to the paperwork. I guess they found that as boring as I find the paperwork at my job. Anyway, if anyone has read any 1st hand accounts on this subject, I would be greatly interested to see how they did all this in the field. I have attached to records of a trooper in the 1st MD for possible discussion. I find the one interesting because he asked to be reimbursed for a McClellan saddle and probably a US halter and maybe a US issue Colt pistol. Just food for thought.

[Jerry Ross]

Re: Horse paperwork/logistics

Rob,
Thanks for sharing that paperwork. I have never seen anything like that before. Sorry I can't answer any of your questions .Neat stuff!
Jerry

[rbruno]

Re: Horse paperwork/logistics

Hey Jerry,
The paperwork aspect of the war is really starting to interest me. I just wonder how they managed all the paperwork and logistics of running a regiment, brigade, and on up. No wonder officers had such large staffs. The paperwork is out there, but I am still interested in how they handled it in the field. I am sure different manuals describe this part of being an officer, but I am looking for any reference from a diary or something a little more personal. If anyone has a manual that decribes the process, I would be interested in that too. I just have not come across anything in my research.

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Horse paperwork/logistics

Hey Jerry,
The paperwork is out there, but I am still interested in how they handled it in the field. I am sure different manuals describe this part of being an officer, but I am looking for any reference from a diary or something a little more personal. If anyone has a manual that decribes the process, I would be interested in that too. I just have not come across anything in my research.

Mr Bruno,

PM inbound w/ primary info on the means of appraisal in the CS service by legislative action.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Mark Choate]

Re: Horse paperwork/logistics

Hi Rob,

I am in much the same boat as Jerry on this one. I can't say that I have seen anything like this especially down here as would relate to the western theatre CS trooper. I know things were a bit more formal in the east. At first pass, I would think this to be strictly an early war attempt before the ravages of war really set in for the confederacy, but your copies say June of 1864 which kinda blows that to pieces.

I am especially intrigued by the specific reference to the Mac saddle. How on earth would he claim that he provided an enemy made saddle for use with the confederate cavalry? Perhaps things were so bad that the clerks were told to look the other way. Quite a story and would like to see more if you find them.

thanks,
Mark

[Mike Ventura]

Re: Horse paperwork/logistics

I tend to agree with Mark and am with Jerry in that I've never seen any thing like this before. I think that Mark may be correct that things were "different" in the west as Western CS cavalry, specifically Forrest and Wheeler, ranged over a much larger geographic area than did Eastern Theater CS cav. I just finished re-reading Brian Steel Wills' "The Confederacy's Best Cavalryman - Nathan Bedford Forrest" and there is absolutely no mention or inference to anything like Rob has posted. In fact, there are several mentions of men replacing horses by "conscription," stealing them from the Federals or bringing new stock from home, but nary a mention of any paperwork.

Amendment: Let me state that I am well aware that this was "on the books" in the CS regs. I have just never run into it in "reality" in the western theater.

I'm having lunch with Brian Steel Wills in a few weeks, he is the new Director for the Center of Study for the Civil War Era at nearby (to Atlanta) Kennessaw State University, and I'll ask him if he knows of anything, being that he is one of the most renowned Forrest historians.

[rbruno]

Re: Horse paperwork/logistics

I have to check tonight when I get home, but one of the troopers wrote a letter along with his reimbursement request basically pleading to the gov't for money for not only the horse but the equipment and if he didn't get it, there was no way he could purchase everything for him to rejoin the unit. I will see if I can post it tonight.

Mike, your point is exactly what I am interested in. I am sure it is "on the books" as well. But the manuals and the "reality" can be two different things.

I will see if I can post some more tonight for all of us interested troopers. Makes cavalry seem that much more difficult then infantry doesn't it.

[Mark Choate]

Re: Horse paperwork/logistics

Yep.......those "beetle-crunchers" don't know how good they have it, ha.

Mark

[Mississippian]

Re: Horse paperwork/logistics

Very interesting stuff, I did have a question though, what would be the average price of a horse in 1861? My GGG Grandfathe, Benjamin Holder,was a 1st Lt. in the 1st South Carolina Cavalry, and had his horse valued in 1861 at $185 and it's equipments at $35. IIRC, he was paid an $25 a month because he used his own horse. He was the illegitimate son of a planter, Col. Benjamin Hagood, who owned alot of land in the Upstate of SC, and was noted for his "fine horses and work animals" as well as "good whiskey".

Will MacDonald

[Mark Choate]

Re: Horse paperwork/logistics

Will,
In response to this thread, I was having a conversation today with a fairly knowledgeable historian (that most of you know and love) and he has seen records that show that the intention by the fledgling Confederate government, in at least a few examples, was to pay the trooper $.50 per day for the use of his mount. That would basically mean that the typical wage of $12/mo. would be doubled if you provide your own mount. The question also came up in our conversation as to how many of these troopers ever saw any of this money given they financial status of the Confederacy. Can't verify that portion, but hopefully this gives you a taste of what type of reimbursement was intended.

thanks,
Mark

[rbruno]

Re: Horse paperwork/logistics

I found a couple more papers just for more info. I can't find the letter from the trooper asking for the money to get back to his unit. I will keep looking and post when I find it. Someone brought up another great point. I was looking at how they just kept track of the paperwork, but didn't think to ask about how the money was return to them. Many of the papers say "paid" but as these horses started getting up in the thousands of dollars, that is a lot money going cross country to a camp some where to be handed out to the troops. Again, have not read anything in a diary or memoirs about this kind of process that had to be critical to the CS trooper.
As to someone elses question, in the Fall of '62, one of the captains in the 1st MD went to NC to buy horses for his company that was being formed in Richmond at the time. He bought 60 horses out of his own pocket and paid $230 for each horse.

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Horse paperwork/logistics

Rob,

Wow! Great questions!! When I saw this post some time ago I wanted to respond but had little time to do so. I have long wanted to research and write something on this so this has motivated me to review a file on the subject that I have accumulated. It is an untitled, rough draft summary that I humbly submit. It is not footnoted right now I am sorry to say, but the finished product will be. However, I would like to point out that this is a summary of about fourteen General Orders and Acts of Congress as well as dozens of diaries, reminiscences, war time letters and published articles that relate to the subject matter. I may be missing something or altogether misguided so your critiques and questions are welcome.
Ken R Knopp

https://www.confederatesaddles.com

----------------------
According to the Provisional Congress Act of March 6, 1861 volunteer cavalrymen were required to furnish their own horses and early in the war, their equipment. All other horses such as artillery and transportation animals were to be provided by the quartermaster department. Trooper’s were to receive feed, forage, forty cents a day as remuneration and repayment of its value should the horse be killed in action. This was adopted in the belief the volunteer would take better care of his own property than a government issued one. Unfortunately, this rather quickly had the undesirable effect of severely limiting the effectiveness of the Confederate cavalry. The sad cavalryman that lost his horse in service but not killed in action was soon rendered useless until he could find another.
At muster, the volunteer trooper’s horse and horse equipments were valued by at least two company or regimental level officers. This information was normally kept with the other company papers. In effect, the horses and equipment became government property. Later, when possible, the equipments were replaced by Confederate issue. The used but useful equipments were then turned over to the ordnance officer for reissue, sent back to the depots for repair or destroyed.
As for their horses, in theory the forty cents a day accumulated and was paid to the trooper when he received his monthly pay. When a horse was killed in action a trooper was entitled to be paid the established value of his horse. However, trooper’s were not compensated for horses that died from disease, malnutrition or exhaustion nor for inflation. Payment was made by the Quartermaster usually then next time he came around to pay the men. In practice however, given that any pay to troopers was often many months if not a year or more in arrears, this money was often lagging. Moreover, Confederate money was increasingly worthless at the same time horses only grew more expensive.
Early in the war the valuations placed upon a horse were at pre war prices which with the high inflation of the fast devaluing Confederate dollar were quickly rendered obsolete. By 1863, the cost to replace a horse was such that only the wealthiest trooper’s could afford to purchase another. A summary of multiple sources, diaries and reminiscences finds the average horse in 1861 valued at from $150 to $200 and a good one at about $400. By the end of the war to purchase a poor, below average horse required $1,200 to $1,800 and a first rate horse could be as much as $4000 or more. The effect was devastating. Horses were not only unaffordable to most everyone but often the bravest and best troopers were lost to the service. In subsequent years there were many attempts to rectify this inadequacy but the Confederate Congress was never able to remedy the injustice.
Early in the war and until May 1863, when a horse needed replacing the trooper was given leave (usually 30 days) to obtain another. There was not much difficulty in procuring horses or mules in the first year of the war but by the summer of 1862 with the loss of the South’s substantial geographic breeding areas of Missouri, Kentucky, west and middle Tennessee and western Virginia, the South lost access to its most critical areas for replacement animals.
However, all to soon the high cost and difficulty a trooper had in finding another horse caused many soldiers to be absent from their commands for extended periods. His subsequent failure to return to service precipitated General Orders #67 in May 1863 that proclaimed that when a cavalryman fails to keep himself with a horse he is transferred to the infantry or artillery “as he selects”. On the other hand, the same order allowed infantry or artillery men who can get a horse be allowed to transfer to the cavalry. As a result many men changed service or left the army, at this time. Personal stories are rife with soldiers of means leaving the infantry to transfer to the cavalry. Unfortunately others, particularly in the west, absented themselves from their commands so as to avoid service altogether. For example, these men were no small part of the conscripts Forrest rounded up in his west Tennessee raids. Sadly, this ill-conceived order resulted in the loss to the ranks of a lot of otherwise good men. Increasingly, only the most stouthearted, patriotic or men of means that could afford to, remained in the cavalry.
The practical employment of the cavalry horse in the field is interesting. Horses were in effect, both the property of the soldier and the government. In the field, they were often sold and swapped amongst the men. A natural practice that was sometimes abused by the men and eventually condemned by the government authorities. In fact, in November 1864 an official order was finally issued stating that horses were to be treated as public property and disallowing all sales or exchanges without permission. Still, with little real control over this issue the practice continued throughout the war.
When a trooper was in the hospital or otherwise absent from command his horse was considered his property and normally kept in camp, with the wagons or more often with horse shortages, used by another trooper in his company or mess. Sometimes special arrangements were made to send the horse to a rear area such as a local farmer friend of the trooper or sent home. The practical arrangements varied greatly depending upon the trooper’s circumstances, the time of the war and the needs of the command.
Another aspect was captured horses. When mounts were taken from the Federal’s they were supposed to be treated as captured property and sent to the rear. However, more often they were treated as “booty” in ways that apparently varied among cavalry commands. Sometimes the troopers were allowed to keep what they captured. In other units they were not. For example, in Forrest’s command his officers and his Escort Company got “pick of the litter” in captured horses, arms and equipments. Remaining horses were scattered among the command as needed or to the dismounted brigade. As can be imagined, this sometimes caused quite a bit of friction with the private that had captured a fine animal sometimes at risk of his own life.
Apparently beginning about 1863, horses were routinely inspected by the government or by regimental officers and graded as “serviceable” or unserviceable”. The unserviceable that could be recruited back to health were often sent to convalescent camps in the rear. To the respectable trooper this was abhorrent. Often called names such as the “sick, lame and lazy camp” the camps were often made up of slightly disabled troopers, men with disabled horses or no horse at all.
Invariably, the now dismounted troopers were formed into units in the rear and marched with the cavalry as infantry or (as “wagon-dogs”) with the wagons. Again, to the proud trooper, a disdainful, ignoble place to be found. In extreme cases, the worst horses were condemned and turned over to the Quartermaster for sale which caused no small amount of dissatisfaction among the troops as they knew that meant being sent to the dismounted brigade or permanent transfer to the infantry.
By mid 1863, the lack of serviceable horses had fallen to such a low point that several orders were issued in the attempt to remedy the situation. Quartermaster General Myers speculated that 8-10,000 horses and mules were immediately needed in the service. General R E Lee, President Davis and others had been discussing obtaining horses from the Trans Mississippi where they were plentiful. Some were apparently gathered for that purpose on the Louisiana side of the river during the winter of 1862-1863 and some were still there as late as July. It is not clear if any ever made it across however, the talk was too little, too late and rendered mute with the fall of Vicksburg and the reality of an isolated Trans Mississippi. Other ideas were adopted to eek out the horse supply. In May 1863, General Orders #60 required that all public horses found in the transportation service but suitable for the artillery service were to be turned over to the Chief Quartermaster and replaced with mules.
Impressment both “official” and “unofficial” became the norm. The practice of illegal impressment of horses from private citizens was abused to the extent that in March 1863 a Congressional Law as passed stating that only unit commanders could seize horses and then only after obtaining legal authority from the district commanders and paying for them in script, “according to the prices established by district boards”. Notwithstanding, impressment not only continued the rest of the war but became increasingly abusive as desperation grew and law and order broke down.
In the fall of 1863 a good idea was floated and apparently adopted to divide the Confederacy into four Field Transportation districts under the Inspector General’s Office. The distinctive feature of this was the establishment of horse infirmaries or convalescent camps as noted above, under special officers whereby sick, lame and exhausted horses were sent for recruitment. Unfortunately, few records of these depots have survived but of those that do they suggest that while helpful these infirmaries would prove to be only partially successful.
In a late war report of the district that included Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia and the armies in the Carolinas Major J.G. Paxton reported that of the whole period of fifteen months in existence he had received 6,875 artillery and cavalry horses of which only fifteen percent had been returned to service. The remainder had died, been lost, stolen or condemned and sold. In general, the major reason for the failure was disease, a lack of forage and that many were sent to the rear too exhausted to recover. Interestingly, mules for transportation serviced fared better with a 57% recovery rate. The mortality rate among cavalry horses was the worst followed by the artillery horses then the transportation animals. No details appear for the cavalry horses but Paxton estimated that the average life of a horse in the artillery and transportation service was only seven and one half months and but that a mule was five times more durable than a horse.
Despite the huge impact on the effectiveness of the cavalry and the war effort from the loss of horses, the government response was too often slow, inadequate or entirely counterproductive. As the end drew near the desperate need for cavalry finally forced the Confederate Congress to act. In a law passed in late December 1864 and signed by Davis in January 1865 (in the Congressional Journals but never printed) required that the Quartermaster was to provide horses to dismounted cavalrymen. Again, too little too late and it is doubtful few if any were issued to the cavalry. By this time, with the Confederacy showing the pale of death there were simply no horses to be had.

PHOTOS: The photo are a partial scan of the second page of General Orders # 33, Nov. 1, 1864. It includes an interesting Descriptive Roll of animals belonging to the command.

[rbruno]

Re: Horse paperwork/logistics

Ken,
Thanks for the information. No wonder it is confusing for us to research when it appears that the horse was considered both private and government property. I am glad to see you found some infromation on a post I started several months ago. I have always wondered about what a CS trooper did with his horse when he was in the hospital. I think several arguments seem possible. The horse could have been given to a dismounted man, but that does not solve the problem of getting a mount for a man already in the company who is without a horse. This would only be a temporary fix. When the orginal trooper returned from the hospital, he would I would guess get his horse back and then the co. would have the same person without a horse. I can also see a horse taking the time to recruit when a trooper is in the hospital and the horse kept at a near by farm. In the other thread on this, I posted a request from an officer for forage for his horse while he was in the hospital. I am assuming, big assumption, that the horse was kept near the hospital and fed there.
On this thread, I am attaching another form I found that at least states the value of the horse is listed on the company muster roll. Again, where would the muster roll and paper documents be kept when a regiment was on campaign? I would think this would be a lot of paper to keep track of when officers where on active campaign.
You also made a good point that the pay master is often months behind. I just was searching some paperwork and found that an officer requested payment for a trooper horse that was killed in June of '63 at the very beginning of the Gettysburg campaign the request was submitted when the co. was in camp around Fredricksburg almost 5 months later. Was that just when the officer had time to fill out the paperwork? What did the trooper do in the meantime?
As far as troopers and treating captured items as bounty, I can only speak from my research on the 1st Maryland, but they were under the idea that what was taken was their bounty. I have read several diaries of men who "liberated" horse, equipment, etc and they would use some of the items themselves and give things they didn't need to men in their company or another soldier to use. I have been able to find first hand accounts of that at least.

As obvious as it is for troopers and the importance of having a mount, it is hard to believe how little I have been able to find about the process and logistics of keeping the horse and the paperwork that went along with it. Seems like there are plenty of regulations, but not everything was followed in the field. Maybe the horse was so common and part of the daily life of a soldier that it was not worth writing about what they did with them.

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Horse paperwork/logistics

Some clarity is probably in order here. First, my information is an “opinionated summary” of the many, many first person sources I have read over the years. When I read a diary, reminiscence, war time letter etc, I try to flag the pages with little stickies and notes regarding information that likely will be useful later. This is where I have drawn my “opinionated summaries”. They are not the only truth in any of these matters nor should they be considered the final word. Just simply my observations as to what likely occured under certain scenarios. Others milage may vary.

Q: In the other thread on this, I posted a request from an officer for forage for his horse while he was in the hospital. I am assuming, big assumption, that the horse was kept near the hospital and fed there.
A: As for officer’s in hospital.....it was routine although not exclusive that officers had servants or at least access to some others servants in his “officer’s mess”. Officer’s horses were exclusively private not public property. My reading suggests that these servants often cared for the officer’s horses to a great degree even when he was absent in various capacities. They also often had an extra horse or two. Again, cared for and ridden by the servants usually in the rear with the regimental wagons or other wagon trains. However, the horse could just as well have been used by other officers at this time, sent somewhere to the rear or in camp during winter quarters. The possibilities are endless.

Q: On this thread, I am attaching another form I found that at least states the value of the horse is listed on the company muster roll. Again, where would the muster roll and paper documents be kept when a regiment was on campaign?
A: Company or regimental papers would be kept with the regimental wagon however, I have read on occasion where they were stored at army depots and once, at a private dwelling (that was subsequently raided and burned). In the early war a single company might have their own wagon but this was soon discontinued. Rules on this varied and evolved but in general regimental and brigade wagons consisted of headquarters, ordnance and quartermaster wagons and were usually kept together on campaign with a guard.

Q: You also made a good point that the pay master is often months behind. I just was searching some paperwork and found that an officer requested payment for a trooper horse that was killed in June of '63 at the very beginning of the Gettysburg campaign the request was submitted when the co. was in camp around Fredricksburg almost 5 months later. Was that just when the officer had time to fill out the paperwork? What did the trooper do in the meantime?
A; In short....without. When on campaign there was barely time for officers to note things like horses, equipment, arms, etc. Under the duress of the campaign and its many necessities men often went temporarily missing and then showed up later so horses and equipment were an afterthought. Only when respite was finally achieved did the officer’s resume official, more logistical duties such as paperwork.

To most period soldiers a horse was a method of transportation, a tool. Sometimes they were appreciated and cared for but more often they were used, abused, abandoned then discarded almost as easily as most any other piece of equipment.
OPINION: I have always had the distinct impression that Confederate cavalrymen were a bit more adept at caring for their mounts than the Yankee. This may have come from their broader, pre-war experience with horses than the typical Federal cavalryman. Certainly, the (city dwelling or small farm) Federal that was to become a cavalryman came to the war with little or no experience in the care of the horse while the typical Southern trooper grew up riding and living around them. This opinion of the Federal has been borne out by much of my reading about the often shocking, senseless, lack of even basic sustenance their horses were sometimes given and their incredible, useless waste of large numbers of horses during the war. In short, the southerner had to do a lot more with less. While I am sure the knife cut both ways it is my own opinion that the Confederate cavalryman through this experience, in general, managed to get more mileage out of his horse flesh than did the Yank.
Just my thoughts. Others may disagree.

Ken R Knopp