Rare! Fairly complete early war report of western CS cavalry arms, equip and horses....

[Ken Knopp]

Its Christmas Day.....the presents have been opened, its 40 degrees and raining outside, the turkey is cooking, the wife is taking a nap, its quiet and so I am "playing" at what I like to do best........

The following are two rare early war reports for western cavalry. What is rare and unique is their completeness- showing the number of men, horses, arms and equipment of nearly half a regiment. Not just any regiment but, the original regiment raised by Forrest himself. Known invariably as the
3rd Tenn, "Forrest's Old Regiment" and sometimes "McDonalds Battlion". This regiment had a very complex history, some 20 to 25 companies being at one time or another attached to it, with numerous fragmentations, changes and consolidation. Organized as a battalion at Memphis under Lieutenant Colonel N. B. Forrest and Major D. C. Kelley, at Camp Forrest, near Memphis, Tennessee in October, 1861. October, 1861; increased to regiment January, 1862; divided into two battalions April, 1862; four Alabama companies (Co's B, E, F, G) transferred to 4th (Russell's) Alabama Cavalry Regiment in November, 1862; the remainder as Balch's Battalion under Kelly (Co's A, C, D, H, and I); then as McDonald's Battalion yet still recognized by Forrest as his old regiment. Interestly, it was this McDonald’s Battalion of 139 men (and Morton’s Artillery- some 271 effectives plus staff or 300 total) that formed the nucleus for Forrest's Cavalry when he left the Army of Tennessee in Nov. 1863 to form his new command in North Mississippi. This battalion was sometimes also known as the 26th Battalion or still as Forrest’s Old Regiment; again reorganized with additional companies as a full regiment in 1864; later depletions forced it to be consolidated with 12th Tennessee Cavalry Regiment in February 1865; and finally surrendered and paroled at Gainesville, Alabama, May 1865.

The first is a report of serviceable and un-serviceable horses for these five companies under Col. Kelly (Co's A, C, D, H, and I). Taken on August 9, 1862 in Tupelo Miss, the regiment contained 169 men with serviceable horses, 44 men with unserviceable horses and 36 dismounted men (249 men total).
SOURCE: E.B. Trezevant papers, Staff Officers Files, RG 109, War Dept Coll. of Confederate Records, National Archives, Wash DC.

------------------------------
Headquarters Forrest’s Regt Cav
Tupelo, Miss, Aug 9, 1862
Capt Hyams A A A G

Sir,
I submit the following report of the condition of the men and horses in this regt.

Co. A 32 Horses fit for duty
6 Horses unfit “ ”
6 Men without horses

Co C 23 Horses fit for duty
8 Horses unfit “ ”
6 Men without horses

Co D 27 Horses fit for duty
5 Horses unfit “ ”
7 Men without horses

Co H 40 Horses fit for duty
24 Horses unfit “ ”
6 Men without horses

Co. I 47 Horses fit for duty
1 Horses unfit “ ”
2 Men without horses

By order of the Lt Col Kelly
Cmdg. Forrest’s Regt. Cav

E B Trezevant, Adjutant

-------------------------
The second is a list of the arms and equipments in the same five companies of Forrest’s Regt of Cavalry dated a few days later........
SOURCE: E.B. Trezevant papers, Staff Officers Files, RG 109, War Dept Coll. of Confederate Records, National Archives, Wash DC
---------------------------

List & condition of Arms and Equipments in Forrest’s Regt. Cavalry Aug 12, 1862


(On hand)
Shot guns 115
Maynard Rifles 42
Colts Rifles 2
Enfield Rifles 2
Pistols 95
Hall’s Carbines 17
Sabres 175
Gun Slings 60
Cartridge Boxes 53
Cap Boxes 117
Powder Flasks 65
Forage Sacks 35
Bridles 180
Saddles 206
Halters 188
Canteens 35


There is wanted in the Regt. :
Sharps Rifles 30
Shot guns 38
Sharps Rifles 10
Halls Carbines 13
Total 61

Pistols 94
Sabres 47
Gun slings 96
Cap Boxes 42
Powder Flasks 144
Cartridge Boxes 34
Canteens 163
Bridles 51
Saddles 35
Halters 100
Forage Sacks 168
Gun Boots 26


Respectfully,
E. B. Trezevant
Adjutant Forrest’s Regt.
------------------------------------------

EDITOR’s NOTATIONS: This report provides an excellent overall view of early western Confederate cavalry under N.B. Forrest. These five companies had 249 total men and 213 horses so I note the following very interesting points of interest: Unserviceable horses does not necessarily mean “un-usable”. At this point in the war there were no convalescent camps for horses so men with unserviceable horses or without horses were often still expected to perform duty. Some 14% were without horses (dismounted). A prudent commander might not take a man with an unserviceable horse on a long raid but, he would use them in defending territory, guarding trains or other places and other duties including picketing; The large number of shot guns still in the command; the wide variety of long arms; there are still sabres (95 or 53%) in this, Forrest’s original regiment and, that they desired more; The use and desire for even more powder flasks (likely for the shotguns); The shortage of all accoutremements including only 14% had canteens or haversacks, only 38% had pistols, less than 50% had cap boxes, only 20% had cartridge boxes but that they want only 34 more! (One has to speculate why? ....I speculate that the cartridge boxes were for the troopers carrying carbines or rifles. The powder flasks were for those carrying shotguns); Forage sacks likely means Haversacks; Gun slings probably mean carbine slings straps but maybe not.
How would this apply to authentic reenacting early war western cavalry? ....Less is best relative to accoutrements; more shotguns; men left in camp with sick and lame horses or no horse at all; cannot say for sure from this but as with weapons one would likely see a wide variety of saddlery and tack in use including civilian.
Opinions and Observations? What do you think?


Ken R Knopp

https://www.confederatesaddles.com

[Forrestcavalryman]

Re: Rare! Fairly complete early war report of western CS cavalry arms, equip and horses....

Ken. Merry Christmas!

Wow! This really is something, I do have one question though. Do you think that by "Colt's rifle" they mean the 1855 repeater? Glad I got that shotgun this year, seems like that will be a good choice of a weapon for the 150th's.

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Rare! Fairly complete early war report of western CS cavalry arms, equip and horses....

Andrew,

Yes, one in the same. They were fairly common in western CS cavalry throughout the war. Yes, the shotgun was an excellent choice. Very authentic at any time of the war. Hows that new hat?

Ken R Knopp

[Forrestcavalryman]

Re: Rare! Fairly complete early war report of western CS cavalry arms, equip and horses....

I'm loving it! I was telling Mark the other day that I finally know what ya'll mean by "a good hat". I didn't realize that the 1855 was very common, talk about underrepresentation! I do have one other question though, how common would it have been for a trooper to use a civillian saddle later in the war? I have an english styled saddle that I would love to use at the COI, but I don't want to be unauthentic.

[Jerry Ross]

Re: Rare! Fairly complete early war report of western CS cavalry arms, equip and horses....

Ken,
Thank you for sharing this important information with the rest of the world. If new recruits would read this information it would be a lot cheaper to start knowing that you don't need all of the gear. It was a surprise to see all of the sabers . I have a shotgun to use but have not thought about using the flask to load it .
This is a awesome refound bit of information.
Again thank you for this Christmas present

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Rare! Fairly complete early war report of western CS cavalry arms, equip and horses....

Andrew,

A civlian saddle such as a Kilgore, Somerset, wagon saddles, variations of Texas saddles and of course, English saddles would still have been relatively common even late war. By "relatively" I would mean to recruits, conscripts etc. A seasoned veteran in the field would have long ago replaced this saddle for a Federal McClellan or one of the Confederate issue patterns (depending upon geographically "where" he is found). However, even in the spring of 1864 Forrest was doing alot of recruiting and suffering shortages of saddles for his command so would have utilized an English saddle when necessary. I do not think by then that they were prevelant but no doubt still found in the ranks. Many period English saddles with their padded, calf skin seats, knee rolls, etc. were generally not made for the hard use and exposure to the elements that they would incur in the field and, were also not made to carry much in the way of equipment. These facts rendered them undesireable but still used when necessity demanded.
Be sure your English saddle is of the correct pattern and materials. While some of those from the early 20th century fairly resemble the period patterns, modern ones would not work at all. Materials are very important. Leather is different today (thats why the early 20th century ones are more akin) as is the hardware. Tacks and buckles of iron (brass too, not chrome plated) and of the correct patterns. Stirrup strap hangers are most certainly different today (even though we dont see them). Stirrups are important too. Period iron or brass stirrups in the pre war patterns. These are generally very much UNLIKE anything we see todays on English saddles.

Ken R Knopp

[Blair]

Re: Rare! Fairly complete early war report of western CS cavalry arms, equip and horses....

Jerry,

Just a bit of caution, as a suggestion on my part... be safe!
Please use pre rolled paper cartridges when loading any firearm for reenacting.
It is far better to have 60 or 70 grains of powder go off in your hand in the event of a "cook off" than having half pound (3,000 grains), which maybe contained in a powder flask.

[Forrestcavalryman]

Re: Rare! Fairly complete early war report of western CS cavalry arms, equip and horses....

Thank you for the information Ken!

[Mark Choate]

Re: Rare! Fairly complete early war report of western CS cavalry arms, equip and horses....

Well, Ho, Ho, Ho, everyone.

Some good stuff, Ken and believe it or not, I was reading over some of this last night as I was researching Forrest's early volunteer action into the cavalry when he enlisted as a private on June 14th, 1861. When I first read the report, just like Jerry, I too was at first surprised by the number of sabres. However, when one looks at the still relatively early date of this report (Aug. 1862) and then considers that as Ken points out, the origins of this group included a lot of churning. The original formation in Oct '61 which grew to regimental strength early in '62 only then to once again lose companies to the AL. Cav and subdivide into Btn. strength in April..........by August it had seen a lot of churn! So, the Aug "62 date of this report was still quite early in it's formation. I would be curious to see a similar report by some time in '63. Would probably be revealing. Ken, did Santa bring you a later report on the unit? :wink_smil

I do agree that this gives good substantiation for us in "the hobby" today to have a number left in camp as sick or with "unserviceable" mounts. Of course, we are usually not able to spare very many bodies and need every butt that we can get in the saddle...........but I digress.

Andrew, please read and digest Ken's words very carefully as to the english saddle and the necessity of it being of the "correct pattern and materials." I think I know the saddle of which you speak and it is not quite right for what you are wanting to do.

Thanks,
Mark

[Jerry Ross]

Re: Rare! Fairly complete early war report of western CS cavalry arms, equip and horses....

Ken,
Where do you think that the troopers would carry their lead slugs, bird shot or buck and ball ? I was thinking about this and the powder flask would be explained for the shotguns. The lead could be carried in their pockets. I have read of accounts where soldiers have done that too. In earlier times a shot bag would be carried, but there were none in the report. Just some thoughts.

[Mark Choate]

Re: Rare! Fairly complete early war report of western CS cavalry arms, equip and horses....

Jerry,

Good questions.

Since the shotguns were of personal origin in most all cases, would it not stand to reason that they would have brought shot bags or something akin to them, that would not be "official" or "unform" enough in design to merit or rate official report or disclosure? When in the past, I did some 18th century historic impressions, I was struck by the lack of uniformity in much of what they carried (especially the colonist) with regards to the conveyance of powder, shot, wadding, etc. By the early 1860's, while a bit more advanced, the lack of uniformity would still be rampant for such items.

Just a thought
Mark

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Rare! Fairly complete early war report of western CS cavalry arms, equip and horses....

Mark, You are right...un-official, non-regulation, civilian items would have been used but then "maybe" not noted in the reports. This is one of the most frustrating and difficult things to factor into the inspection reports. There was an obvious lack of uniformity in the way the inspections were interpreted by the AIG officers. Some are very detailed and some grossly shallow often even by official A.I.G. officers. It is not clear why.
The sabre thing surprised me too considering Forrest's published thoughts on the usefulness of a saber. Maybe it was a preference of that command at that time, or, Forrest at this early date, Aug 62, he had not yet come to this conclusion. I am not sure if Forrest ever "ordered" that there be no sabres in his commands or, if the idea was simply one of common sense evolution. I do not know. Forrest always carried one and others in his command probably did too. I do know, that by May of 1864 anyway, virtually none are found in his command.

Jerry,
Good questions! I was wondering the same thing. I am only speculating about the flasks but it makes sense when juxtaposed against the numbers of shotguns and other long arms vs cartridge box "wants". Forrest's reports often show "buck & Ball" cartidges for the shot guns, other 58 cal. and 52 cal ammunition too. I am not sure where they could ideally carry these except for in their haversacks, pockets, maybe nose bags...I cannot say for certain.
I am always struck with wondering when I examine these reports. Even the most authentic cavalry reenactors tend to be far oversupplied when we think of the basics of a cap box, cart. box, canteen, haversack, saddle, bridle, blanket, etc. From all that I have read and studied the reality was usually less. When one compares the numbers of "effective" (present at inspection) men in most western CS cavalry commands to the equipment noted in these inspection reports what is surprising is what equipment is "lacking". It is unusual to see "one" of each... cap box, cart box, saddle, bridle, canteen, etc. "per man". So. it would not be unusual to envision some men without cap boxes or without a cart box, etc. I published an article on the shortage of haversacks and canteens among western cav a couple of years ago (it can be found on my web site). While I have not run the percentages on the above report I would bet it is bears out the same conclusion.
In fact, a study I did some years ago found that Forrest had 9,637 men available for duty but only 8,952 “effective men” (As of a May 26, 1864 report for Forrest’s Cavalry Corps). It is of interest to note that he had plenty of serviceable horses from recent captures (about 10,000). Some of these men (about 900) were immediately taken from Forrest by Richmond and sent back to their infantry commands. Forrest sent off another group of men to other areas. Still, he had about 5-6,000 under his command and available to him under just before the battle of Brice's Cross Roads in June. Many historians (even Bears) suggest he went into the fight with about 4,500. In the Jordan and Pryor book on Forrest (essentially a autobiography of Forrest as he personaly approved its content) they claim about 3,000 at best. The study I did found proved that Forrest was accurate in his number. Why? First, arms. From this May 1864 report, Forrest cavalry had 8,952 effective men yet only 64% can be armed with long arms. Of these about 76% are carrying infantry weapons (largely two band Austrian, short Enfields and Mississippi rifles) and about 24% carrying carbines (the majority Sharps though a few others patterns are noted). Pistols of varying patterns were obvious but most are of 44 or 33 calibre even some single shot "horse pistols". In January of 1864, S.D.Lee’s cavalry received thirteen hundred and fifty (1,350) French Lefauchaux pistols imported through Mobile. These went to Forrest. These were useful so long as the special ammunition held out. By the time of this report less than 400 still remained. Still, only about two thousand pistols of any kind or 22% to effective men, could be found in the entire command including officers.
Second, Forrest was desperately short in horse equipments. In fact, not all Forrest’s men could be mounted- he did not have the saddles. While there were plenty of horses only 72% of effective men had saddles and bridles. The severe lack of saddle blankets, usually an absolute necessity, is a bit more puzzling and difficult to explain. Only 37% of effective men could have a saddle blanket. I cannot explain that.
Third, as of this report at best, only 50% of Forrest’s effective men had accoutrements of any kind! Of these, about one half appear to be infantry pattern cartridge boxes complete with shoulder belts and almost no cavalry sabre belt rigs. In fact, almost no sabres are found in this report.
Even if one takes into consideration the equation that Forrest disarmed the men he sent back to the infantry (he did) and take into account that the men he detailed elsewhere were fully armed then by figuring the percentages Forrest could NOT have sent more than about 3,200 or so into the fight at Brice's Crossroads. His men were scattered all over the place and all had to ride between 10 and 40 miles just to get into the battle. Forrest simply did NOT have the saddles, bridles to get all of his men to the battlefield and then once there, the weapons to make all of these available men into combat soldiers. This does not take into account stragglers either on that hot June day.
In short, and relative to the point ...at any given time a typical western cavalryman may NOT have had one cap box, one cart box, one haversack, one canteen, a long arm and certainly most never had a pistol. The numbers just do not show it. It was not unusual for the trooper to be lacking one or more of these items. Why? I cannot say for sure. Forrest was very adept at capturing large numbers of Federal troops, stores and supplies. It has often puzzled me why. Maybe it is for a variety of reasons. At any rate, from December 1863 to the end of the war Forrest routinely had a significant number of dismounted and un armed men under his command - usually with the wagons or marched as infantry.
So, as I have always suggested, for the AC cavalryman...... less is best!

Ken R Knopp

[The Egyptian Homeguard]

Re: Rare! Fairly complete early war report of western CS cavalry arms, equip and horses....

Back to the shotguns... Couldn't it have been simply if you brought your shotgun from home you would have also brought your flask/horn and hunting bag also? Who would take the gun and not the accessories? I'm sure I've over simplified the issue, but personal bags might not have been recorded as they were/ would have been personal property? Z

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Rare! Fairly complete early war report of western CS cavalry arms, equip and horses....

Yes, great point Zack (as you always do)...one can then draw a reasonable conclusion that if you brought your own shotgun then it would be accurate to have a civilian shot bag, etc.
Keep in mind that a significant number of shotguns were purchased by ranking wealthy volunteer officers, state and CS arsenals in the early war period for issue to gathering troops. For example, one that comes to my mind is that of a number of shotguns purchased through the Memphis Arsenal (by Col Hunt) in the summer of 1861 until spring 1862, then issued. Forrest is known to have rec'd a number this way as well as purchases he personally made. The arsenal there advertised for and bought up local civilian shot guns (even having bayonets made for some of them). It would make sense that they also purchased or had made some sort of shot bags, flasks, powder horns, etc. for issue with them. One could imagine this being done at alot of places. I remember seeing somewhere some photos of an English imported shot bag or some sort of cart box on this forum once before.
Yours and Mark's point about whether or not it would be recorded by an inspecting officers is another story. Their inspections appear to be sporatic and without a real sense of guidelines until February 26, 1864, when AIGO Order 46 ½ authorized subordinate offices in the Adjutant & Inspector’s General’s Office to undertake special duties. One of the offices created at that time was the Office of Inspection. Prior to this, official War Department inspections of cavalry appear to have been ordered only on a random basis as necessity demanded. More often, they were a result of inquiries or orders made by ranking officers at the army, division or brigade levels. That April 1864, Col. Robert H. Chilton was assigned the task of organizing and implementing a system of inspection duties and reports in the armies and staff departments. However, it was not until the late summer of 1864 that official, uniform "forms" were prepared and regular inspections of the cavalry appear to have been implemented.
Sorry, I kinda got lost....anyway, the conlusion: Shot guns are authentic and should be seen in more numbers. if you are carrying a shot gun at an early war to mid -war event (even later on occaision) think about "dressing up" the impression with an appropriately made civilian shot bag, powder horn or flask.

Ken R Knopp

[Blair]

Re: Rare! Fairly complete early war report of western CS cavalry arms, equip and horses....

I can't help but wondering if we may not be reading a great deal more into a report such as this, than is actually written? Or perhaps, miss interpreting what is being written?
Point,
"Sir,
I submit the following report of the condition of the men and horses in this regt.

Co. A 32 Horses fit for duty
6 Horses unfit “ ”
6 Men without horses"

Is the total number of horses in this Regt. at 32, with 6 of those being unfit? Or would the the tally be 38 horses if all were fit? And, would there still be the same number of "Men without horses" if all the horses were fit?
What qualifies a horse as being "unfit"? Could it be completely warn down? Obviously, that is what I would assume in this cases.
An alternative, maybe, the animal is in need of shoes of being re-shod?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Another point,
"List & condition of Arms and Equipments in Forrest’s Regt. Cavalry Aug 12, 1862


(On hand)"

This listing would seem to be pretty cut and dried as to what is stated.
A total of 181 long arms hardly seems sufficient to outfit a Regt. of Cav. Might be enough for a two Company Battalion. Some numbers seem to be missing here for anything like a Brigade.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This listing, however, seems to be either a "wish list". Or could it be a list requesting items be "replaced" that were turned in for maintenance or repair?,

"There is wanted in the Regt. :"

With in this listing why are Sharps" Rifles" listed here twice? Once for 30, and again for 10. Are these all actually "Rifles" or combinations of rifles and carbines?


As much as I like reading these types of Reports, they can have a tendency to omit things covered or reported on previously.
I would agree with what Zack suggests, not "all" their stuff is reported every time with each and every reporting. Let the bean counters at the QM or OD work it out.
Just some thoughts from my point of view,