Buckskins?

[Charles Heath]

Re: Buckskins?

Zack,

The Munson image shows up in EOG-US, too. I don't recall the page number off the top of my head, but it is on the left side, upper left corner fairly early in the book. Would that we all looked nearly that good, both man and mount. Munson has the surcingle employed as a breast strap and the billet is dangling down a bit. It's one of the few photos I'd like to have copied, matted, framed, and hung on the library wall. There's just something about that photo which is totally captivating, IMHO.

Just as a pure supposition, my guess is some of Lytle's photographic work has not been published over the years and is sitting in a repository somewhere gathering dust. I don't know if that would be in LA or DC or where, but maybe, just maybe, three or four more plates exist from those Baton Rouge shots that have not been widely circulated. For what it is worth, those old CW Photographic Histories are cheap on the used market, and (like we all need another dozen books), and have been overlooked for the most part, in spite of being reproduced in recent years and readily available.

Charles Heath

[CJSchumacher]

Re: Buckskins?

Charles, Some where I have the Munson image... I think in "Blue Lightening" and I've seen the tentage image at Baton Rouge... I just don't have a clear photo of it. There are several 6th troopers buried around here, so it's lort of a local CW intrest... Thanks, for the info. Zack Ziarnek

Zack,

I've had the 1911 Miller's volumes for some time and remember the Grierson photos. Actually, there are two seperate photos showing the men mounted and later dismounted. Even with the higher quality printing in the original volumes, its still pretty hard to make out some of the finer details. I'll check my cav volume tonight and have a closer look.

Larry,

Is the "mounted federal w/ the spotted horse" you're referring to the 6th Ohio cav guy that used to be posted on the military horse website?? That photo is great as it shows trimmed hardee, mounted service jacket, un-bloused trousers, etc.

"Three mounted rebs just outside of DC in Falls Church..." Where is this? Wouldn't Ken Knopp have included this amongst the 15 known pictures of mounted confederates in his preliminary works??

[CJSchumacher]

Re: Buckskins?

Zack,

For what it is worth, those old CW Photographic Histories are cheap on the used market, and (like we all need another dozen books), and have been overlooked for the most part, in spite of being reproduced in recent years and readily available.

Charles Heath

Cheap?? There's currently an original set on andersonmilitaria.com for sale at almost $600. I guess that's not terrible considering its only $60/volume, but I'm not sure about the readily available part.

Here's a quote from their site..."Last set we found just before this one was priced $895. These are rare antique volumes and rare books bring very high prices. However, we can do better than usual on this set. Please add $35 for P/S/I. It's a very heavy set. $595"

Just wanted to dispell any mis-information.

[Charles Heath]

Re: Buckskins?

Chris,

There's a sucker born every minute. It helps to know where to look.

The fact is the 1957 reprints of the 1911 first edition have been running around $8-10 for a couple of years, and once in a while the much later reprint version of a four volume set comes up for about $30. The highest I've seen a single volume is about $20. If someone wants to pay $600 by their own personal failure to shop around, well, that's good for the seller. The lowest I've seen is a hefty $2 per volume without dustjacket, foxed, and fairly worn. A quick search on Amazon will reveal the 1988 and 1991 reprints runing in the $7-$9 range used, and $17.99 for new. Not all volumes are in stock. That's part of the fun of building a personal library.

Just clearing up misinformation about good information. I like to encourage people to buy books, rather than scaring them away from having good quality information at their fingertips. Others have different philosophies about sharing information within the hobby, so be it. It never hurts to look for fairly priced used books outside of the high priced realm of "collectors." Sometimes good books can be had for free, if you know the right people.

Thanks, James.

Buy low, sell high.

Charles Heath

[CJSchumacher]

Re: Buckskins?

Buy low, sell high.

Ahh...a typical day up here in nyc...life is good!

That was what a quick search did while looking for the original 1911 series in its entirety. The reprints just lack the quality and in my opinion true value of these works...since the text is so often misrepresented.

I remember seeing the Munson photo and being inspired to try the "surcingle as a breast strap" method back in the earlier 90's. Works well, but I still found that if you don't require a breastrap, then its as unecessary as using any others. Of coarse, many horses just lack the withers and there are so many quarter-horse types in the field today that slipping saddles is pretty common...let alone unskilled hands saddling horses or not checking girths periodically. Uphill and mountainous riding, of coarse warrant its use also.

Still, one of the best shots of a fighting man during the ACW.

[10nycav]

Re: Buckskins?

If a horse has low withers I have found that what they need is a crupper, not a breast strap (breastplate). I have a Canadian horse who is about as mutton withered as they come. A crupper is an absolute necessity but a breastplate is unnecessary. I have found that the breastplate is necessary on (to quote Henry William Herbert) those "highly bred horses that tend to run out of their saddles.") Typically these are horses with high withers and rather small and/or narrow barrels. Usually a lot of TB in them. There are a couple of horses like this in my group and they use private purchase breastplates. None of the other horses need them even going up and down hills. Then again we have no QHs in our group so maybe the conformation of our horses is not typical of what is out there among most modern cavalry groups.

(Herbert, who was an Englishman, also noted that many American horses of his time--1850s--required the use of a crupper, which was considered a great fault among European riding horses, ponies excepted of course. But the Americans seemed to think little of it. Apparently this reflects differences between American and European horse breeding. Could it be that the European horses he was most familiar with were bred for riding alone, while many American horses had to be "jacks of all trades" and had to be suitable for both riding and driving? Also perhaps sheds some light on why the crupper was an issued item during the ACW while the breastplate was not.)

Ken Morris

--

Ahh...a typical day up here in nyc...life is good!

That was what a quick search did while looking for the original 1911 series in its entirety. The reprints just lack the quality and in my opinion true value of these works...since the text is so often misrepresented.

I remember seeing the Munson photo and being inspired to try the "surcingle as a breast strap" method back in the earlier 90's. Works well, but I still found that if you don't require a breastrap, then its as unecessary as using any others. Of coarse, many horses just lack the withers and there are so many quarter-horse types in the field today that slipping saddles is pretty common...let alone unskilled hands saddling horses or not checking girths periodically. Uphill and mountainous riding, of coarse warrant its use also.

Still, one of the best shots of a fighting man during the ACW.

[CJSchumacher]

Re: Buckskins?

Ken,

That is interesting as my horse is high withered and has minimal barrel/chest and I've had minimal problems with saddle slippage...requiring neither crupper or breaststrap. This goes for both quarter strap and english rigging.

I've had some opposite results riding quarters, though. Anyway, I think that it really depends on the type of riding being done as all saddles will inevitably slide a bit. A properly saddled horse and a constant watch on your girth has the best effect on end results. Again, if you are riding in the mountains or a lot of uphill riding...both may be a necessity.

[agintomboy]

Re: Buckskins?

Stonewall Jackson's mount "Little Sorrel" was described by one contemporary observer as a "dun of very sorry appearance." From my readings dun appeared to be a color that was more common in non-TB horses at that time. I would argue that this color was rare in horses originating in the Northeast and Canada, due to the original base stock of these horses, but became more common as one traveled South and West. Common local stock, with probable old Spanish influence, would be more likely to have this color. "Poor men's" horses in the South, for example marsh tackies, cracker horses, Creole horses, and Chickasaws, would be more likely to be of this color since they all have Spanish influence. It was found in the Mexican mustangs of Texas as well as half-bred "Texas horses" (TB/Mexican cross). First hand Civil War accounts also discuss gray and roan horses, so these would be fine too.

The only color I would say is inaccurate for battlefield use is a spotted horse. There is substantial period literature arguing that such horses were less hardy. There was a strong military prejudice against them on the basis of appearance too. In the East they were considered fit for circuses, pulling advertising wagons, and the like. If they were ever used it would most likely be in the western theater where they had access to Mexican mustangs. (I think I recall seeing one mention of Kilpatrick riding a "spotted horse" but unfortunately can't remember now where I saw it.) Still, it would a rarity on a par with jaguar-skin trowsers as far as I can tell.

Of course, many reenactors use horse types and breeds that were rare or nonexistent in the US at that time. Color is only one issue although of course, the most easily recognizable. Unfortunately, many of the old breeds and bloodlines are extinct or nearly so, and among those breeds that have survived appearance has often changed a great deal.

Ken Morris

Dear Ken:

I agree with you regarding color distribution/incidence among nonTB and Spanish type horses. When I went on a riding holiday in Portugal over a decade ago, I saw all manner of "western" colors such as palomino, dun, grulla, blue roans, buckskins, etc. One can see the genetic ancestry of QHs and other Spanish type horses by going back to Spain or Portugal. I have a red dun foundation QH named Cpl. Tyree who unfortunately is a little too "on" to be a reenactment horse ;-0! He is built like a brickhouse, has a "sorrel" color to his body with deep coppery red points: mane, tail and legs with 3 white socks/stockings and a blaze. ALL duns have the primitive horse markings of darker points than the body, sometimes zebra striping on the legs and a dorsal stripe. Buckskins are similiar but LACK the dorsal stripe, have points and looking at the picture of Little Sorrel, he has no points. His legs are the same color as his body. He definitely is a sorrel. All Spanish type horses ultimately go back geneaologically to the North African Barb rather than the Arab which helps to explain the color distribution in these breeds. By Spanish type horses I include the Andalusian, Lusitano (of course!), Spanish Mustang, the foundation QH before 1940,the Canadian horse, the Morgan, the Friesian, the Cracker horse, the Rocky Mountain Horse with lesser amounts in the Tennessee Walker and Saddlebred. This is by no means an exclusive list but covers the major breeds descended out of Spanish stock. If any of you have seen my brown, racking pony Fuzzy, he is definitely a Spanish type large pony (14 H) with the arched neck, short back, rounded hindquarters. He unfortunately has mutton withers and every saddle rolls on him except the Mac, thank GOD!! His gates are very smooth and he is great on the trail. It makes it easier to blow the bugle at any gait faster than a walk!

Anita L. Henderson

[Charles Heath]

Re: Buckskins?

Ken,

You really nailed it on the conventional wisdom of cruppers and breastplates, and for those of the longears persuasion, a britchen (aka breeching or britchin) can be a handy device for keeping the saddle off the withers on those steep downhill glides. I don't use the latter in a period setting, because other than as a component of draft and pack harness, I haven't seen any CW era documentation for such in saddle mode. They are still available brand new for modern riders, but back to the period discussion....

Little Mac and others before him who were designing cavalry equipment probably had the experience to consider the condition of the animal several days or even weeks into a mission, as well as develop aspects for worst case terrain scenarios for man and beast. A saddle that fits well on the parade ground may barely fit at all after a week or two on the move. Where casual trail riders have many opportunities to stop and check their tack, this wasn't always the case for the cavalryman on active campaign, especially once he was actively engaged. It is good someone had the forethought to provide components for decidedly off road use, which is ironic considering cruppers are often found in sets of driving harness. :tounge_sm

There is always something fun to learn if we look for it.

Charles Heath