Uh-Oh! Not "That" Again!....

[Ken Knopp]

Uh-Oh! Not "that" Again!....the ole "sword attached to the saddle" controversy once again.....Sorry guys, could not help it. I came across this today and thought I might share it...


From Lt Col Arthur Fremantle's book "Three Months in the Southern States", April - June 1863 Lincoln, Univ. of Neb Press, 1991, pgs 250-251

"With the Army of Northern Virginia, moving from Chambersburg toward Gettysburg, Pa. 30, June 1863....

...I had a long talk with many officers about the approaching battle...I remarked that it would be a good thing for them if on this occaision they had cavalry to follow up the broken infantry in the event of their succeeding in beating them. But to my surprise they all spoke of their cavalry as not efficient for that purpose. In fact, Stuart's men, though excellent at making raids, capturing wagons and stores, and cutting off communications, seem to have no idea of charging infantry under any circumstances. Unlike the cavalry with Bragg's army, they wear swords, but seem to have little idea of using them- they hanker after their carbines and revolvers. They constantly ride with their swords between their left leg and the saddle, which has a very funny appearance; but their horses and generally good, and they ride well. The infantry and artillery of this army don't seem to respect the cavalry very much, and often jeer at them....."

Hmmmmm, alot here to comment on - don't you think?

Ken R Knopp

[volcav]

Re: Uh-Oh! Not "That" Again!....

I can see why, if Stuart's cavalry wasn't trained (drilled) in the use of the saber, that they'd rather not use them. A saber is a pretty up close and personal, nasty kind of weapon that would require some skill to use effectively. Also a person moving on foot can easily get tripped up wearing a saber if they are fighting dismounted and unaccustomed to wearing it. It would seem from this quote, that the other branches of service didn't see the cavalry as a real combat arm since they didn't seem to get in the thick of a heavy battle but did more scouting and skirmishing than the heavy head to head, force on force that the infantry and artillery were subjected to. That seems to me to be where the saber would come into it's own like at Brandy Station with a large Cavalry on Cavalry engagement. The biggest virtue of the saber, in my opinion, is that you don't have to reload it. So following that train of thought, if you aren't trained it the use of it and don't get into engagements where it would be useful, why would you wear it? You'd carry it because you were required to but if you could put it on your saddle and be done with it, why not? I'm just making observations of the attitudes of the people involved in the quote above and not personally disparaging anyone or any branch of the service.

[Paul L Muller]

Re: Uh-Oh! Not "That" Again!....

I think this is great news , any and every reason to get shed of that "letter opener" is a real boone. To bad we'er requirred to wear it, generally . plm

[The Egyptian Homeguard]

Re: Uh-Oh! Not "That" Again!....

Cool information, sort of goes back to Sgt H.A. Allen of the 11th Illinois Cavalry. “I carried one [a saber] for four years and never drew it from the scabbard, except for drilling, or on parade”... Seems sabers were considerd near useless East and West.

[Iron Scout]

Re: Uh-Oh! Not "That" Again!....

Hey Folks,

Like with anything it's a slippery slope to make over generalizations regarding anything Confederate. As an example, the Hampton Legion cavalry trained for several months at Ashland Racetracks north of Richmond where they perfected drill, saber drill along with dismounted (Hardee's foot drill). Both Hampton and Stuart were very fond of the saber an employed them when the opportunity arose in close quarters. Likewise, the SC regiments stationed along the coast prior to heading to Virginia as part of Butler's Brigade kept a strict schedule that included saber drill both mounted and dismounted.

It is interesting to note that in the 5th SC Cavalry's order book that is housed at the SCDA&H notes an order in 1863 that roughly states "Sabers will be attached to ring on the left side of the saddle with a strong piece of leather or buckskin, leather and buckles at this time cannot be procured." How long this lasted I'm not sure given supply issues. I'll pull my notes soon on said orderbook and post the exact quote from LTC Jeffords.

Regards,

Neill Rose
Iron Scouts
Palmetto Guards

[rbruno]

Re: Uh-Oh! Not "That" Again!....

Neill hit it on the head for what I was thinking. Ken's quote is a great qoute which leads to more questions that can help our understanding of, in this case, CS Cavalry which I don't think can ever be "generalized" as Neill put it. It would be great to learn, which we would probably never know, with whom did Femantle discuss the cavalry. It is well know that many infantry officers ( Gen. Early for instance) did not like the cavalry and really viewed it as an impediment to his army. And, there were others (Gen Jackson) who viewed it as a necessary and vital arm of the army. Jackson praised his cavalry at times and also admonished it when it didn't perform to his satisfaction. So, depending on which offers were in the discussion, Fremantle could have gotten a different perspective.
As Neill pointed out with the Hampton and other SC units, many units were very well drilled in the use of the sabre. Especially those units that were commanded by pre war officers who were trained and drilled themselves in the US regular army in the use of the sabre. I also believe that not all units had such drill and were not proficient at is use. It is also interesting that the time period from which the qoute is taken, there are several cavalry battles/skirmishes taken place while Lee is moving north through VA, MD, and PA. The battles of Aldie, Middleburg, and Upperville to name a few where all three arms of the cavalry were being used and many were wounded, killed, or disabled from sabre wounds. Although several engagements took place after the quote, ie Stuart's movement in the rear of the Feds at Gettysburg when Hampton himself is all cut up by sabre wounds, and the battles/skirmishes that occured on the way back to VA, there are plenty accounts of the use of the sabre. I don't have my book in front of me, but there is a great description of a sabre fight in the middle of Hagerstown when Co. A of the 1st MD Cav had a severe fight with the Fed cavalry. Sgt Hammond Dorsey of the 1st MD disables 5 troopers with his sabre and complains that he would have had a 6th but he went after the bugler and the trooper used the bugle to block his cuts.
So, great qoute that brings up more questions which is what is great about this hobby and research. I do not doubt that some CS units as well as Fed units attached the sabre to the saddle. However, which units and how often is the next question that again may be impossible to answer. Neill's direct link to the 5th SC is a good start. There is also a slight hint of it in a diary of a trooper in the 1st MD. I say slight because the passage is from after the surrender on his way home he "unbuckled" his saber from his saddle and threw it in the river. Could it be hanging from the saddle because he was no longer in combat and it was easier? I don't know.
Anyway, great qoute for us to keep researching.

[The Egyptian Homeguard]

Re: Uh-Oh! Not "That" Again!....

Just my thoughts and observances here... It seems to me that I see more Federal reenactors practicing this (attaching sabers to the saddle) than CS... It seems that the CS troopers tend to abandon their sabers all together. Z

[Tom Craig]

Re: Uh-Oh! Not "That" Again!....

Just my thoughts and observances here... It seems to me that I see more Federal reenactors practicing this (attaching sabers to the saddle) than CS... It seems that the CS troopers tend to abandon their sabers all together. Z

Zack,
I am sure this wasn't your intent, but we have to watch out that we don't justify ANYTHING based on what reenactors practice.


The original quote referred exclusively to CS cavalry in the east. I will say that I know very little about anything CS. The little of what I do know often comes from federal accounts and federal focused history. I have never read anything about how CS troopers carried their sabres, but I have read numerous first person accounts attesting to the fact that the CS cavalry tended to prefer their revolvers over their sabres.

Federals on the other hand, at least in the east were far more sabre focused for mounted action. There are truckloads of accounts of small unit charges throughout the war. Most of them happened in small actions; scouts, patrols and so on, where a small body was looking to cut their way (literally) through an opposing force.

Along with that, federal cavalry, after 1863 seem to lean more and more heavily on putting their sabres on their saddles. There are numerous accounts of it, and a few orders relating to the practice. Nothing seems to be universal in CW practice, but by and large the regulars kept their sabres on their belts while more and more volunteer outfits switched to mounting them on their saddles. Perhaps Andy German or John Tobey can weigh in with some quotes for us here.

The catch, in terms of reenacting is that many of "us' avoid this practice altogether in fear of either looking like a farb, or encouraging the farbs to do it themselves when it isn't appropriate. The 1st Maine has done some experimenting with the pratice, and most of the guys have found it works just fine (for later war events). The problem for us is that most of the events we do are earlier war events for some reason.

Take care,
Tom Craig
1st Maine Cavalry

[The Egyptian Homeguard]

Re: Uh-Oh! Not "That" Again!....

Tom,

I was unclear, my intention was to say I see more Federals practicing this than Confederates, hence another reenactorism or over generalization, akin to the brass heart breast strap and two revolvers.

Did it ever happen? Yes.
Was it the norm? Probably not.
Should we portray it? At the discretion of each individual scenario …

Hopefully, that made my thoughts clear as mud.

Z

[docwood]

Re: Uh-Oh! Not "That" Again!....

Mr. Bruno, I'd be most grateful for a citation for (or better yet, a link to!) the passage about the "sabre fight in the middle of Hagerstown".

Thank you.

[ButtermilkRanger]

Re: Uh-Oh! Not "That" Again!....

I don't think the issue that Ken was trying to bring to light was whether or not the sabers were used, but how they were carried. Way back in the day, this horse was beat to death as to whether sabers were carried on the person or on the horse. My over generalized answer is simply... both. Like all things, it depends on the individual unit and in all too many cases, the individual trooper. My preferred research lies mostly with the Trans-Mississippi Confederacy and we know that west of the river the saber was held in very low regard. Many of the units I've researched were never even issed a saber. However, I have found that several TMD units were issued the saber and they were drilled in its use. The double barrel shotgun and the saber seems to have been a popular duo in some TMD units. How they chose to carry them is anybody's guess.