Federal saddle cloth clarification.

[GAR]

I've been making an officer's saddle cloth using Dorsey & McPheeters "American Military Saddle, 1776-1945" as my main reference.
On page 344, Figure 6, it states that "The leather panels (one on each side) allowing passage of the surcingle measures 8 1/2" high by 10 1/4" wide."
Now that I've added them, I find it is impossible for a surcingle to pass through the slits as they are completely covered by the saddle skirts. The quarter strap rigging, however, will pass through the slits and it appears to be the real function of the openings. I believe the authors got it wrong.
Can anyone confirm this or am I missing something?

Thanks in advance,

Gary

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Federal saddle cloth clarification.

Point of clarification: The term saddle cloth applies to a decorative cloth that fit under the saddle (usually over a saddle blanket or pad) while the term Schabraque applies to a cloth that fit over the saddle with slits allowing the protrusion of the cantle and pommel.

Anyway, while others more knowledeable than I can chime in here I will not pass judgement on the veracity of the measurements nor authenticity of the saddle cloths in Dorsey & McPheeters book. I will offer that since officer's saddlery was private purchase perhaps the saddle cloths were made for a certain type saddle? Most period saddlery was center fire rigged. I also note that the width of the slit in the cloths in the Dorsy McPheeters book is quite wide- perhaps to accomodate both the quarters straps and surcingle? Just a thought but maybe both are correct depending upon the saddle. Nevertheless, Good question! Your point is well taken.

It has been my understanding that not long into the war the fancy saddle cloths/shabraques tended to be used only by high ranking officers. Line officers might use a lessor saddle cloth or more often, a simple saddle blanket to make them less distingquishable in combat. Regardles, I attach two photos of Federal general officer's saddle rigs sans riders allowing us a direct though less than consumate look at both types. One of Grant's Cincinnati employing a schabraque and the other Gen. Rufas Ingalls using a saddle cloth.
I am sorry that this does not answer your question but maybe its helpful. Perhaps others can comment here.

Ken R Knopp

[GAR]

Re: Federal saddle cloth clarification.

Thanks, Ken. It is a saddle cloth similar to General Ingalls however I don't see a surcingle being used with it (?) and the large fenders don't allow a view of the slit, if there is one. Yes, a surcingle and rigging could both pass though it, but only if the surcingle was used UNDER the saddle, which defeats it's purpose. My saddle is a '59 Mac and I'd have to cut slits into my skirt in order to have a surcingle pass over the saddle and through the cloth. I think Dorsey & McPheeters got it wrong if the saddle cloths described were to be used with a McClellan.

I'm aware many officers toned down their visibility to enemy fire, but others did not. I read somewhere that Captain G. A. Custer looked like a French admiral leading the charge. Some officers seemed oblivious to the dangers and I suspect some felt that "hiding" their rank would be viewed as an act of cowardice. Napoleonic warfare proved impractical, but it was the mindset that was prevalent prior to the war. I'm sure it contributed in part to the higher casualty rate of line officers.