Confederate Saddles & Horse Equipment http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:08:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 en American Curry Combs: History & Identification http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=1048 http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=1048#comments Thu, 19 May 2011 02:20:00 +0000 Ken R. Knopp http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=1048 This was initially published in the 2011 Jan/Feb issue of North South Trader’s Civil War Magazine. The culmination of a fifteen year passion and effort, I was significantly assisted by resarch materials provided by my old Yankee friend Ralph Emerson Jr. - I consider it one of my best works and humbly dedicate it to him. Ken R Knopp

                                                    AMERICAN MILITARY CURRY COMBS

                                                    THEIR HISTORY AND IDENTIFICATION

                                                                   By Ken R Knopp

                                                   With assistance by Ralph Emerson Jr.

If there is one article of military material culture that has languished in obscurity and neglect it is certainly the curry comb. Overwhelmed by confusing multiple patterns, hampered by little historical documentation, even less understanding and no respect as a collector’s item, the lowly curry comb has sadly been relegated to the junk box of indifference. To the “equine challenged” the curry comb is of unclear purpose appearing archaic if not downright abusive to horses. Yet for centuries the rubbing down of the horse with curry combs and hand brushes was regarded as essential to the animals general health and condition as well as appearance. As a primary grooming tool the curry comb was originally used to remove caked mud, dried manure, sweat, matted and dried hair from the coat and as a means to discourage parasites and finally, to massage the underlying muscles. This is how it was generally employed by the military of the 19th century. However, to prevent skin injury by the early 20th century British military orders and there is evidence the Americans too, dictated that the curry comb no longer be used directly on the horse but only as a tool to clean the horse brush while grooming. 1. Unfortunately, this clearly lead to its being deemed unnecessary, soon ignored and then, eventually forgotten.

 

CURRY COMB ORIGINS:
Relative to horse grooming, the word “curry” was already being used in the late 12th century. It is an English word taken from the French meaning “to put in order, prepare or arrange.” Curry combs as we know them today, first appear in contemporary European drawings as early as the mid-13th century. (Figure A.) Ensuing English illustrations and excavations suggest their appearance remained relatively consistent into the 16th century. The more modern concept of a square back comb with knockers and multiple rows of teeth appears in the French “First Modern Encyclopedia” of 1751 but likely predates that time. (Figure B) At first, curry combs were fabricated by hand and not cheaply made for the masses but rather, well constructed and sometimes even decorative- designed for sale to the wealthy class but this soon changed. The English led the way with innovations to the evolution of the curry comb including the attachment of a mane comb directly to the curry comb in 1798 and, the invention of a machine to cut the comb teeth in 1799. 2.         
 
 
    
 
 

                    

     
ENGLISH CURRY COMB MAKING:
The industrial Revolution that began in 18th century England subsequently spread through Europe, North America and then the world. Manufacturing became prolific across northern England in the early 19th century with some areas becoming centers of influence such as Manchester for textiles, Northhampton for leather; Birmingham for iron and metal products and all of it augmented by the coal industry centered in South Wales. At first, these industries were dependent upon little workshops employing small numbers of skilled craftsman operating looms, presses, stamps and lathes by hand but soon the advent of factory based, steam powered machinery greatly influenced production. Many of the English towns and small villages of the era were hubs of specialized manufacturing. Birmingham, the “city of a thousand trades” was the world’s leading manufacturer of metal ware, but other goods were made there as well. Near Birmingham was Wolverhampton where the door lock trade had its center and Wallsall, which was the world’s manufacturing center for leather horse equipment and saddle lorinery (hardware- bits, spurs, stirrups, etc.) from the late 1700’s until just after WWI. 3. The leading English curry comb manufacturers were located nearby in Willenhall. Throughout the late 18th early part of the 19th century English made combs were considered the highest quality and exported to America in large numbers.

In Willenhall, James Carpenter was an iconic figure. He started making ironmongery in 1795 and patented several door locks and then in 1815, a curry comb. (Photo C) Sometime in the early part of the 19th century Carpenter promulgated another unique curry comb design that would become the preeminent civilian pattern of the 19th century. American manufacturers patented several of their own designs but it was Carpenter’s “333″ pattern that has the distinction of being widely copied by American makers prior to the Civil War including being used as a model for Federal military contract made combs. 4. (Photo D)

   

AMERICAN MILITARY CURRY COMBS

MEXICAN WAR THRU DRAGOON ERA: No official mention of curry combs are found in the 1841 nor the 1850 Ordnance Manuals. Documentation during the Mexican War on the subject is scant but indicates three hundred dozen of an unknown pattern were contracted from the Philadelphia firm of Price Newlin & Co. 5. The first indication of an official army pattern comb was not until 1856 when Major Peter V. Hagner commander of the Frankford Arsenal in Philadelphia, where much of the pre war military equipment manufacturing was centered, was authorized by the war department to purchase two thousand curry combs. It is clear from his correspondence that the only pattern Hagner was adamant about receiving was “Carpenter’s No. 333″. However, he had difficulty in fulfilling such a large order. As a result he contracted with three different firms but had to wait for some of the combs to be imported from England. In the end, the order was apparently filled to satisfaction with the “333″ but Hagner had to settle for at least 20 dozen of another unclear pattern described as, “8 bars, C 16″, which he was told were “equal in quality to Carpenters” No. 333. 6. (Photos E & F) :

Three years later in December of 1859 Hagner had become dissatisfied with the quality of much of the horse equipment then available and purchased under contract. He was particularly critical of the iron combs (the “333″) made in England and was looking for a better way to furnish these needs in America. As with saddle trees, bits, stirrups and other malleable iron products made under contract, Hagner proposed moving to more consistent “Government manufacture” for these items (such as that recently with the McClellan equipments). As for curry combs, heretofore, Hagner had “taken every occasion to procure and recommend only that known as the best brand, Carpenter’s No. 333“. Now, writing to Chief of Ordnance Col. H.K. Craig, he became convinced this item could be made at “our Arsenals” in better quality by using steel plate instead of iron and as he says, “changing a little the style of manufacture at a small increase in price. Thus effect …the home-supplying of this article” 7.

Hagner began working earnestly on a new pattern. A month later several samples of current and proposed patterns were sent to Chief of Ordnance H K Craig who endorsed Hagner’s idea. The result was the M1859 pattern as described in the 1861 Ordnance Manual. 8. (PHOTO I) In the meantime, the inevitability of the war that was looming on the horizon was not lost upon the officers of the Federal Ordnance Department. A flurry of manufacturing, maneuvering and stockpiling of arms and equipment activity took place over the next year some of it for curry combs. Ironically, in March 1861 some fifty dozen of this, the U.S. Army’s first official pattern curry comb, were ordered by Capt Josiah Gorgas in surely one of his last official duties to the old army before resigning to become Confederate Chief of Ordnance. 10

 
WAR TIME FEDERAL CURRY COMBS:
Early in the war the Federal Ordnance Department was under tremendous pressure to arm and equip the fast assembling volunteer troops. First prioritizing arms and other equipment, curry combs were no doubt, low on the list of necessities. They filled the void by contracting copies of the “333″ comb and buying wide varieties of combs off the civilian market. Which accounts for the large number of 333 knock offs and other non-descript commercial combs excavated from war time sites. However, by late summer 1862 the Federal Ordnance Department was ready to address the issue of large scale manufacture of curry combs and an entirely new pattern. (Photo H)
 One of the more prolific American makers of curry combs in the 19th century was the firm of A.A. Hotchkiss & Sons of Sharon Valley, Conn. Best known for his famous “Hotchkiss Shell” the incredible, almost fairytale story of the young, invalid inventor and genius Andrew Hotchkiss is worthy of another study. 9. Yet while well known for his rifled cannon projectiles Hotchkiss was also one of America’s largest makers of curry combs. In the 1840’s he “adopted” a comb pattern similar in appearance to the English Carpenter “333″ pattern which he sold successfully in the civilian market. Then in 1849 and again in 1856 he patented his own unique curry combs. (Photo G) Activities which no doubt, brought him to the attention of the Ordnance Department. Since 1859 Major Hagner had been working closely with Hotchkiss & Co. to develop military combs including the M1859 and they now considered a new pattern. It is not exactly clear who invented the newest comb but it is certain Hotchkiss had significant influence. In any event, the result was the M1862 curry comb known hereafter as the “US”, “Y” pattern or Government comb.

That September, the Ordnance Bureau’s chief Gen. J. W Ripley, asked the Hotchkiss company to send samples of two grades of their best cast steel “US pattern” combs in various stages of manufacture to enable the Department to make rules for the inspection of the article. The correspondence suggests that this new pattern was not yet official nor in full production but, soon would be. Then on September 19th Ripley ordered Capt S. Crispin in New York to immediately purchase one hundred and fifty thousand of the “Hotchkiss No. 76 pattern” packed in cases of two hundred each- clearly meaning the new M1862 government pattern. (Photo J) Hotchkiss had also recently provided five thousand of the old M1859 pattern and had five thousand more readily available. Crispin was obviously not pleased with the new pattern pointing out among other things, that the shank handle of the Hotckiss comb was weak and easily broken. In its place Crispin respectfully suggested Ripley reconsider another government pattern- that made by the Allegheny Arsenal. 11.

Despite the fact that the M1859 had been given the government’s official blessing, the Allegheny Arsenal, known for their self appointed independence, went into production with their own curry comb in March 1861. Described as an “open back” curry comb with a “strong, well modelled handle-shank” its pattern is simple and very similar to other civilian combs of the period. In subsequent discussion with Crispin, Ripley thought that while the open back pattern of the Allegheny Arsenal comb was “preferable” he still favored the “US’ pattern telling Crispin…”the steel of the Hotchkiss is lighter and gives a cleaner look and better finish.” For uncertain reasons the Allegheny pattern would prove inadequate. Relatively few of this pattern were made with only 13, 318 manufactured at that arsenal during the war and none after June 1863. Although it remains likely that other firms also provided the “US” pattern comb during the war, it is clear Ripley also considered the superior manufacturing abilities and capacity of Hotchkiss & Sons. In any event, the army finally settled upon the M1862 or “Y” pattern comb. Thereafter, many tens of thousand were made by Hotchkiss and other firms for issue in the Union army. 12. (Allegheny Comb: PHOTO Y)

In addition to the two official government combs, other comb patterns were also purchased under contract. For example, a fine, heavy duty comb designed by Sarah Jane Wheeler, the first women in Connecticut to receive a patent, was made and issued in considerable numbers. This comb was simply but heavily constructed, utilitarian and cheap- perfect for mass production. Another pattern that was ordered for trial basis in August 1863 was a “flexible back” comb patented by John W Rockwell of Connecticut. The flexible back comb was unique. Rather than an iron back it had a back made of thick, oak tanned harness leather with the eight bars of steel teeth attached by rivets then clenched over the ends and, a leather hand strap instead of a handle of iron and wood. One thousand were ordered for trial. While it is not clear how they were received by troopers in the field nor, if any more were ordered, this was the very first of a leather back military comb that was subsequently adopted by the army in 1885 and used in various configurations until 1913. 13. (Photos K & L, M)

Unfortunately, it is probably impossible to know how many different curry comb patterns were issued by the army nor, how many combs were manufactured by or for the government. No doubt it would number in the hundreds of thousands. While there were only two official government patterns certainly other patterns were procured too. However, this is all somewhat muddled by the fact that the army sought out innovations and adopted or converted civilian patterns as readily as they oversaw the evolution of the government ones.

　

CONFEDERATE CURRY COMBS:
(See PHOTOS: T, U, V & W)
 For the Union Army, the procurement of curry combs posed little real problem for the mighty Northern industrial base as most American curry comb producers of the era were located in the northeastern and New England states. On the other hand, with little iron production capacity, the South had to rely on an antiquated and now suddenly overwhelmed manufacturing system. At the beginning of the war they were forced to draw almost entirely upon curry comb purchases from the available stock in local saddleries, harness shops and hardware merchants. In fact, few if any contracts appear to have been let for the manufacture of combs until early 1863. The most notable exception to this was the significant numbers of curry combs and horse brushes made at the Augusta Arsenal beginning around the summer of 1862 and shipped all over the Confederacy. Unfortunately, these proved to be very poorly made and in fact, it was these defective Augusta Arsenal curry combs that contributed to the resignation of one of the South’s key Ordnance officers. 14.
  
EASTERN CONFEDERACY:
When Richmond’s Superintendent Of Armories, Major W. S. Downer began advertising for contractors to manufacture trooper’s horse equipment in early 1863, two of the most important items on his list were curry combs and horse brushes. That spring, contracts were let with several commercial suppliers for over 40,000 combs of which, some 33,000 were delivered by the end of the year. It was these curry combs, contracted and delivered in 1863 that were to provide the bulk of the Army of Northern Virginia issues for the entire war. Richmond’s biggest supplier of curry combs and, the single largest wartime source for all of the South was the Augusta Arsenal. 15
 In the first half of 1863, over 11,000 Augusta combs had been received in Richmond; however, due to a bureaucratic oversight they were not inspected either at Augusta nor upon their delivery in Richmond. Ostensibly, both arsenals thought the other would make the inspection. When this oversight error was realized there were already large numbers of sub-standard curry combs on hand which generated no small amount of recrimination among bureau officers. Although the defective workmanship was recognized fairly quickly, the large numbers on hand and the great demand for curry combs forced them to be quietly issued regardless of quality. However, that autumn the controversy re-surfaced with a vengeance when a letter of complaint about horse equipment including these shabby grooming tools, was received from a field officer and endorsed by Gen. R. E. Lee’s Chief of Ordnance, Lt. Col. Briscoe Baldwin: “ the curry combs and brushes are so inferior that it is impossible to groom the horses with them even when new…..the curry combs especially are so weak that the least thing breaks them.” 16.

An official inquiry launched into the matter involved several high ranking bureau officers. It was eventually determined that these flawed grooming tools had been manufactured at Augusta. Yet in spite of the fact that renown Augusta Arsenal commander Colonel Washington Rains had originated the contract, the blame for their receipt and continued issue fell squarely upon Downer’s office in Richmond. The subsequent incrimination and public censure by Chief of Ordnance Colonel Gorgas that January 1864, coming so close on the heels of another horse equipment debacle, that of the issue of inferior Jenifer saddles, sorely wounded the Major Downer’s pride and ultimately contributed to his resignation about a month later. 17.

With the South’s largest source of curry combs disgraced and a decreasing number of outside contractors capable of sustained iron production, supplies dried up very quickly. Colonel Gorgas desperately searched for well-made combs from the western arsenals, but apparently, with little or no success. A few new contracts were let in the autumn of 1864 but with the Confederacy suffering shortages of raw materials at all levels of supply, their eventual delivery fell dismally short of expectations.

WESTERN CONFEDERACY:
Much less is known about curry combs manufactured in the western Confederacy. Like the east, with few exceptions most early war acquisitions were from existing commercial stocks, however these yielded relatively small numbers. By 1863, the seven major Western arsenals were issuing a small number of curry combs, but it is not clear how they appeared nor in what numbers. Records for the arsenals at Atlanta and Augusta provide the only available clues. From March through December 1863, the Atlanta Arsenal “received” 3,174 combs including nearly a thousand sent from Richmond. Of these over 1,300 were issued. Once again, Augusta appears to be the region’s largest single provider during the war, shipping over 10,100 combs to several western ordnance facilities including those at Fayettville and Charleston. However, since each arsenal largely controlled its own local manufacturing efforts, their comb patterns, construction and quantities were inconsistent and sadly remain unidentifiable. 18.
 Little more is specifically known about curry comb manufacturing in the west but by the spring of 1864, the production of all manner of horse equipment was painfully inadequate. In reply to criticism by General Joseph Wheeler’s Chief of Ordnance, Atlanta commander Moses Wright defended his efforts, “on the subject of saddles, etc. I can only state, that we give you everything in our power and surely thought that we had issued spurs enough for half the army, much less the cavalry, and curry combs, I think we send nearly all called for…..We have not unlimited resources and the army must bear with us with what we can do.” Unfortunately, supply in the West would continue to decline to the end of the war. 19.
           
THE CONFEDERATE-MADE CURRY COMB:
Identifying the official Confederate curry comb is impossible. Simply put, there was none. Where the North fairly quickly determined a consistent pattern, the South wandered directionless with no official design or even guidance. The surviving historical record taken from Confederate correspondence variously describes a vague, “closed back” pattern curry comb of either six or eight iron (or sheet tin) “bars” of teeth. The wooden handle was made of ash with the tang of the iron handle shank “to come through the wooden handle & clinch on a burr.” 20. Excavated samples from Confederate sites are generally either common pre-war civilian designs, Federal patterns or, quite often, coarse imitations of both. Most show very crude iron and brass construction in a variety of patterns reflecting the autonomous nature of design and manufacturing at Southern arsenals. Few have survived.

　

POST WAR MILITARY (Indian War) CURRY COMBS:
With large surpluses on hand, it was not until the 1870’s that the U.S. army began exploring other patterns of combs for issue. A questionnaire seeking recommendations for changes to cavalry equipments including curry combs was submitted to cavalry field and command officers. A board of officers was convened in 1874 the partial result of which was the approval, manufacture and issue of a new comb- the M1874, patented by Major Lewis Merrill of the 7th Cavalry. An initial order of one hundred dozen was ordered in June 1876 with a larger order of five thousand that August. In July 1879 this pattern was modified by General Orders No. 76 to replace the single bar frame to the more sturdy and familiar “Y” frame similar in appearance to the M1862 pattern. Unfortunately, a serious charge of patent infringement from a key manufacturer relative to these patterns created a considerable amount of angst in the Ordnance Department over the next three years. Nevertheless, at least five thousand of this altered pattern were ultimately made but not until 1882. However, the trouble thus created caused the Ordnance Department to consider and manufacture other patterns including one designed in 1882 by A. Mordecai at the Watervliet Arsenal N.Y. that had a metal handle bent over the back of the comb. It is clear some of these were made for trial basis but, it does not appear they were made in large numbers. 21. (Photos and Drawings N, O & P)

　

US MILITARY COMBS OF THE 20TH CENTURY: PHOTO Q: M1904 flexible back comb. The military changed from black leather to russet in 1903. This fairly common comb was similar to the M1885 but now using russet leather and, four rivets on each side holding seven rows of teeth and one dust plate. In 1908 the army converted some of their M1904’s by attaching a swivel hoof pick designed by Capt. George Vidmer, 11th cavalry. The M1908 pattern is a very rare comb! Courtesy Ken McPheeters.

PHOTO R: M1912. Another flexible russet leather back comb but reduced in size by one fourth. It now had five rows of teeth and a dust plate, as well as a new attached swivel hoof pick designed by Sgt. Westbrook, Troop G, 15th cavalry. Photo courtesy Edgar Simon.

PHOTO S: M1913: The body was now made entirely of iron sometimes tin plated. A six bar comb with five rows of teeth and one dust plate and attached swivel hoof pick. The new hand strap was made of Olive Drab (OD) webbing (variations include leather straps). This appears to be the last model curry comb issued by the U.S. Army. Large numbers were made. Surplus of the M1913 were often bought by civilian commercial suppliers and re-configured. Some with metal handles. Courtesy Ken McPheeters

　

A NOTE ABOUT POST WAR COMMERCIAL CIVILIAN PATTERN CURRY COMBS:
Although American patents of curry combs go back at least to the 1840’s the post civil war proliferation of the commercial saddlery and catalog trade saw an explosion of varieties and patterns of curry combs. All manner and types and of cast iron, brass and wire combs were invented for the prosperous and increasingly indulgent riding class in the last quarter of the 19th and early 20th century. Significant comb factories under names like Kellogg, Kohler, North & Judd and Fitch sprang up in places like Troy N.Y.; Canton, Oh; and Connecticut which served large retail outlets for horse “furnishings” located all over the country and in a quickly expanding mail order catalog trade. The only exceptionally innovative commercial design was the aptly named Reform Comb patented in 1896– the now familiar oval comb with a strap across the back and concentric circles of teeth on the business side. Its clones included Fitche’s Nuform of 1910 and the post-1920 North & Judd made Duplex, as well as numerous later versions in rubber and plastic.

Indeed, the rise and fall of the curry comb industry after the Civil War precisely mirrored the growth of the Horse and Buggy Age (along with improved roads) during the above period. Curry comb design and production boomed too. Although thousands were made of some patents and virtually none of others except prototypes, from 1872 to 1930 over three hundred and eighty Patents were granted for curry combs. The peak years were the 1870’s- 1880’s when one hundred and sixty seven Patents were granted. From 1890 to 1900 seventy-nine Patents were granted. In the ten years from 1910 through 1920 an ever dwindling seventy-two patents are recorded and then only eight in the 1930’s. By this time America was changing. The invention and afford ability of the automobile dramatically and quickly rendered the horse as obsolete and, their equipment suppliers increasingly less profitable and necessary. 22.

For centuries the horse was man’s primary mode of land based transportation. Sadly, in today’s digitalized, techno-driven computer age our understanding of 19th century horses, training methods, horse equipment construction techniques and purpose is being lost- perhaps forever. As trivial as it may appear, maybe now at least one long neglected, arcane and mis-understood military relic of that by-gone age has been saved from obscurity.

　

TEXT BOX: IDENTIFYING CIVIL WAR PATTERN COMBS:
TEXT BOX PHOTO X:
 Unfortunately, original un-excavated Civil War era curry combs are rare indeed. Those on display in museums, collections and for sale at militaria shows are usually “not” war time period but rather, post war commercial patterns. How could that be…? Confusing patterns. For example, the basic “Y” pattern comb originating in 1862 continuously evolved as a popular commercial pattern well into the 1960’s. Other commercial combs, even patented ones were often similar to early patterns. In addition to the distinct patterns noted herein there are three other ways to distinguish Civil War era and earlier curry combs.

1. Angle of the Handles: The handles on “most” war time and earlier combs were usually flat or, horizontal with the comb back. Beginning in the 1870’s commercial combs were increasingly made with step-ups or, angled handles.

2. Ornate Wooden Handles: Period combs had tapered- sometimes finely lathed or even ornate wooden handles of stained ash, poplar and oak. Military comb handles were often but not always painted. Whereas commercial manufacturers of the late 19th century increasingly moved to thicker handles, often of pine and almost always painted black or red.

3. Rivets: Rivets used to attach the teeth bars on period combs were of solid iron. Hollow, tubular or split rivets commonly used on post war combs were not invented until the early 1870’s.

　

                                                                         -30-

　

AUTHOR’s NOTE: The author wishes to express his most sincere appreciation to collector, historian and WWII cavalryman Ralph Emerson Jr. This humble effort could not have been accomplished without access to his considerable research. Therefore, this article is especially dedicated to you, my friend. Thanks also go to other contributors and historians: Bill Adams, Howard Crouch, Fred Gaede, Terry Heilman, Steve & Joyce Henry, Ken McPheeters and, curry-comb guru Edgar Simon of Owanka, SD. For more information on leather and horse equipment of the Civil War go to Ken Knopp’s web site at www.confederatesaddles.com

FOOTNOTES:

1. THE MEDIEVAL HORSE AND ITS EQUIPMENT, c. 1150-1450, Edited by John Clark, Museum of London, HMSO, London, 1995, pgs 158-168.

2. IBID.

L’ENCYCLOPEDIE, By Diderot Et D’Alembert, 1751-1780. Plate XXVII

3. The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Annals of Willenhall, by Frederick William Hackwood

4. A Gazetteer of Locks, By James Evans, Gazetteer Museum, Willenhall England. The 1815 comb was patented in England (no. 3956).

5. Stanton, Col. Henry to Price, Newlin & Co., January 12, 1847. Acct. 5365, Voucher Aaa No. 7, Box. 795, Records of the Accounting Officers of the Department of Treasury, Entry 523, Settled accounts & Claims, 15 March 1817 - 30 June 1894, RG 217. National Archives, Washington DC. (hereafter NAWDC)

6. Knorr Nece & Co. to Maj PV Hagner, Frankford Arsenal, 16 Jan. 1856, Philadelphia, Pa., Frankford Arsenal, Ltrs Rec’d, 1856, RG 156, NAWDC.

Bvt. Jam, PV Hagner to Knorr & Nece, Jan. 19, Jan. 28 and Feb 21, 1856, Frankford Arsenal, Ltrs Sent, July 1853 - Sept 1856, unpaginated, RG 156, NAWDC.

7. Maj PV Hagner to Col H K Craig, Dec. 29, 1859, H-503 OCO 1859, Entry 21, Letters to Ord. Officers, RG 156, NAWDC.

8. Hagner to Chief of Ordnance Benet, Oct 30, 1880,Waterliet Arsenal Ltrs Sent, 1878-1881, Pg. 443, RG 156, NAWDC.

9. Capt W Maynadier, Frankford Arsenal to Hotchkiss & Sons, April 12, 1861, Frankford Arsenal Ltrs Sent, Jan 1860-June 1861, Pg. 377, RG 156, NAWDC.

10. Andrew Hotchkiss: American Inventor & Genius, By Elizabeth Ward, NSTCW, Vol 33, No. 2 2008, Pg 40.

11. J W Ripley to Hotchkiss & Sons, New York, Sept 5, 1862, Ltrs, Relative to Mfr, & Procurement, Vol. 1,(Jan 62- June 63), Pg 198, Entry 13, RG 156, NAWDC.

Brig. Gen. J W Ripley, Chief of Ord to Capt S Crispin, New York Agency, Sept 19 1862, Ltrs, Relative to Mfr, & Procurement, Vol. 1,(Jan 62- June 63), Pg 221, Entry 13, RG 156, NAWDC.

Capt S Crispin to BG J.W. Ripley, Sept 20, 1862, N-303, OCO, Ltrs Rec’d, Vol 32, 1862, Entry 21, RG 156, NAWDC.

12. Brig. Gen. J W Ripley, Chief of Ord to Capt S Crispin, New York, Sept 29 1862, Ltrs to Ord. Officers, Vol. 22, Pg 626, RG 156, NAWDC.

Quarterly Totals of Manufactures at the Principal Arsenals, Records of the Allegheny Arsenal March 1861- June 1866.

13. Sarah Jane Wheeler Patent for Improved Curry Comb, # 31,199. U.S. Patent Office, Scientific American Monthly, Munn & Co.,Vol. 4, 1861, pg 93.

J W Ripley to Capt S Crispin, August 4, 1863, New York, OCO, Ltrs, Relative to Mfr, & Procurement, Vol. 2, , Pgs 43-44, Entry 13, RG 156, NAWDC.

John W Rockwell Patent, Improvement in Curry Comb, # 40,946, U.S. Patent Office

14. Downer to Gorgas, Richmond, July 16, 1863, Records of Ord. Bur., Vol. 90, War Dept. Coll. of Confederate Records, NAWDC.

Abstract of contracts and correspondence from Ordnance Department Arsenal records. Several dozen volumes: Vols. 8,9,19,78,100,104,105 for the Nashville and Atlanta Arsenals; Vols. 33,34,36, Augusta Arsenal; Vols. 32,101,3,4,6,7,36, 58,59 1/2,83 Macon Arsenal; Vols. 90,91,91 ½, 92,93,94,96,97 Richmond Arsenal/Clarksville Depot. Vols. 140, Savannah Arsenal and others, Ibid.

Files of Capt. Henry Pride # 203; Capt. James Dinwiddie #76, Major William S. Downer #78, Col. M. H. Wright #265; Capt. Richard M. Cuyler #69, Military Service Records, Ibid.

The Augusta Arsenal shipped over 22,000 combs during the War, most of which went to Richmond. Richmond issued 56,903 curry combs during the War. A comparison of Ordnance correspondence and records of curry comb manufacturers substantiate 86% of these issuances. Augusta Arsenal “Ordnance Stores turned over the Quartermaster for shipment, July 1862-Apr. 1865″, Records of Ord. Bur., Entry 33 and “Record of Ordnance and stores ready for shipment”, Entry 34, War Dept Collection of Confederate Records, NAWDC.

15. Files of relative firms: Boyle & Gamble; Cottrel & Co.; E. Kemp & Co.; Smith & Harwood; Stover; and Yale & Co., Citizens Files, War Dept Collection of Confederate Records, NAWDC.

Augusta Arsenal “Ordnance Stores turned over the Quartermaster for shipment, July 1862-Apr. 1865″, RCOB, Entry 33 and “Record of Ordnance and stores ready for shipment”, Entry 34, War Dept Collection of Confederate Records, NAWDC.

16. Downer to Gorgas, Richmond, Jan. 20, 1864; Downer to Gorgas, Richmond, July 16, 1863; Downer to Col. L. Broun, Richmond, July 18, 1863; Dinwiddie to Col. Broun, Richmond, Nov. 27, 1863 and Downer to Boyle & Gamble, Richmond, Mar. 17, 1863, Records of Ord. Bur., Vol. 90, Ibid.

Major J. G. Haskel to Lt. Col. Briscoe Baldwin, Nov. 20, 1863, Briscoe Baldwin File, MSR, NAWDCCR.

17. Gorgas to Downer, Richmond, Jan. 19, 1864; Downer to Gorgas, Richmond, Jan. 20, 1864; Downer to Gorgas, Richmond, Jan. 26, 1864, RCOB, Vol. 90, Ibid..

Special Order # 21, Feb. 22, 1864, RCOB, Entry 39, Ibid.

18. Annual reports of the Atlanta Arsenal turned into Richmond by Col. Moses H. Wright, Moses H. Wright file, Military Service Records MSR, War Dept Collection of Confederate Records, NAWDC.

Augusta Arsenal, RCOB, “Ordnance Stores turned over the Quartermaster for shipment, July 1862-Apr. 1865″, Entry 33 and “Record of Ordnance and stores ready for shipment”, Entry 34, Ibid.

19. Wright to Capt. S.P. Kerr (Ord. Officer to Gen. Wheeler), Atlanta, April 28, 1864. Moses H. Wright File, MSR, Ibid.

20. Downer to Boyle & Gamble, Richmond, Mar. 17, 1863; Downer to Gorgas, Richmond, July 16, 1863; Downer to Gorgas, Richmond, June 11, 1863, RCOB, Vol. 90, NAWDC.

21. Lewis Merrill, Philadelphia Penn., Patent Curry Comb, No. 151146, May 19, 1874, US Patent Office.

Hagner to S.V. Benet Chief of Ord., July 27, 1876, Watervliet Arsenal, Letters Sent, Jan. 1876-June 1878, Pg. 101, RG, 156, NAWDC.

Various correspondence between Hagner, Benet and Mordecai, Oct 1880- Nov. 1882, Ltrs to Ord Officers, Vol. 62, RG 156, NAWDC.

Gen. Orders No. 76, A.G.O. Washington , July 23, 1879, Letters to Ord. Officers, Vol. 56, Pg 70; Watervliet Arsneal Letters Sent 18780-1881, Pg. 298, RG 156, NAWDC.

22. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, http://www.uspto.gov/

U.S. Patent Searching, http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/research/guides/patents.html#older

 

ILLUSTRATIONS:

 

FIGURE B (Above): French pattern from the last half of the 1700’s illustrate the more modern pattern with a square back, multiple rows of teeth and “knockers” (metal extensions) used to strike against a hard object to remove hair and dust from the comb. This pattern dates at least to the 1650’s.

Courtesy French L’ENCYCLOPEDIE.

FIGURE A Above: Medieval comb excavated in London is missing its wooden handle. Combs with tripartite or dual tang handles were common through the 17th century. Variations of this pattern with two to four rows of teeth were made well into the 20th century. A605, Courtesy Museum of London.

 

PHOTO C Above: James Carpenter’s original 1815 patented curry comb which “inverted the handle over the comb back”. After Carpenter died in 1844 his son and son in law took over the business changing the name the next year to “Carpenter and Tildesley”. Excavated from an old home site in Savannah Georgia the maker’s plate on this comb is barely legible but has the words “Tildesley” and “Patented” indicating this comb was a Carpenter 1815 pattern made after 1845. While specializing in the lucrative lock plate business the firm continued making curry combs into the 20th century. Author’s collection.

 

PHOTO D (Above): The Carpenter & Co. “333″ curry comb made by the English firm of (James) Carpenter & Co. of Willenhall England probably dates back to the 1830’s or earlier. It was a common, well known commercial pattern in the 19th century and considered the very best quality available. Issued and used as a model for Federal government contract combs prior to and during the Civil War, its general pattern was also widely copied by American makers for civilian sales. This comb, made sometime prior to 1845 is hefty and well made. The back is japanned and has the firm name and “333″ on the center brass plate and at the handle. Note the knockers.

 

               

PHOTO F (Below): Carpenter & Tildesly “Albert” pattern comb. This unique oval comb was a pre war- English made pattern commemorating Prince Albert- the husband of Queen Victoria. These have been found in the U.S. - one excavated at Manassas. It was still found in English catalogs as late as the 1890’s. Photo courtesy Edgar Simon.

                                                                                           

 

PHOTO E (Above): “Trowel”, a.k.a. “Pad” comb. Originating in England but also widely copied by American manufacturers this was a common, very early 19th century pattern. Author’s Collection.

 

PHOTO G (Above): A.A. & A Hotchkiss Co. of Sharon Valley, Conn. civilian curry comb patented July 1856. Hotchkiss patented at least two curry combs in the 1840’s and 50’s but made two dozen different styles. This simple, light weight comb was known as an “open backed” comb due to its slated back exposing the comb bars as opposed to a solid back comb. The firm supplied a large number of curry combs to the Union forces during the war and continued to patent combs into the mid-1870’s. Author’s collection.

 

PHOTO H (Above): Hotchkiss & Sons Co. made knock off of the Carpenter 333 Comb- an English civilian pattern adopted to US military use. Variations of this comb (a.k.a. the “Fat Lady” comb due the portly image of its back strap) made by Hotchkiss and other firms often had brass center discs. Discs from the 1850’s and war time civilian manufacture are noted with brass disc variances like “222″, “No 100″, horse & rider emblems and patriotic themes such as “Uncle Sam” or Eagle motifs. Another common comb of this pattern but of unclear origins had a brass disc with “Mary Veal Patent New York”. Author’s collection.

 

 

PHOTO I: M1859 (Above): The Federal army’s first official curry comb developed by Maj. Peter V. Hagner and described in the 1861 Ordnance Manual. Ironically, it is very similar to a common civilian comb of the period..

 

 

PHOTO J (Above): M1862 Curry Comb a.k.a. as the “US’, “Army”, “Government” or “Y” Comb. This is the early pattern made by the Hotchkiss & Sons Co. These were sometimes marked No. “76″ and “US” on the tang handle. Unfortunately, the wrought iron shank handles had the tendency to break. Later models of this comb were improved using up to two rivets to attach the iron shank to the comb back and were often marked with “Cast Steel” and “Army Combs” on the “Y”. Photo courtesy of Terry Heilman and Howard Crouch.

 

 

 

PHOTO K (above): The Sara Jane Wheeler Curry Comb was invented and patented (Jan 22, 1861) by Sara Jane Wheeler of New Britain, Conn. It has a unique concave back that added to its strength. A common issue comb to Federal forces in the eastern theater, many are dug there. This comb was retrieved from the wreck of the artillery barge the “General Meade” at the site of the 1864 Confederate sabotage explosion on the James River at City Point Va. Author’s collection.

 

PHOTO L (above): The December 1863 patented “Rockwell” flexible back comb. Made with a back of heavy, well stuffed, russet, oak tanned harness leather, 4 x 4 3/4 inches it had eight bars of teeth and a leather back strap. At least one thousand were made for trial during the war. A variation of this pattern subsequently adopted in 1885 remained in army issue into World War I.

 

PHOTOS M (above): Two more variations of Federal made combs found on the artillery barge “General Meade” sunk at City Point Va. in 1864. On left is a variation of the M1859 missing a part of the handle shank. At right is an improved M1862 “Y” pattern government comb marked “Cast Steel” and “Army”.

 

PHOTO T (above): This six bar comb dug a the site of the Nance Shop Virginia battlefield is nearly identical to an 1850’s civilian eight bar pattern. Confederate combs are notoriously inconsistent but typically identified by their similarities to pre-war civilian patterns yet very coarse manufacture. Few excavated and virtually no intact examples have survived, they are therefore quite rare. Courtesy Steve & Joyce Henry.

 

PHOTO W (above): Two crudely made Confederate combs. On left is a Confederate knock-off of the early trowel pattern dug at Blackford’s Ford- Antietam. The comb on the right dug near Atlanta, is a crudely made, straight bar comb similar to the M1859 Federal military pattern combs. Author’s collection

 

PHOTO U (above): These similar but crudely made Confederate combs are a knock off of an early civilian pattern. On left is a fairly sturdy iron comb dug from the White Oak swamp in Virginia. On right is a brass back with iron handle comb dug from Genl’s. N.B. Forrest and Earl Van Dorn’s 1863 campsites in Spring Hill, Tennessee. Author’s collection.

 

 

PHOTO V (above): All that remains is the brass frame of this six bar comb dug from an N.B. Forrest’s camp site in West Tennessee. Unlike any typical civilian comb, others of this probable Confederate made comb have been found in northeast Georgia. Author’s collection

 

PHOTO N (above): M1874 Pattern Curry Comb.Major Lewis Merrill Patented “straight bar” curry comb was designed so that the user griped the body of the comb during use rather than the handle. Another innovative feature was the attached hoof pick- which proved to be dysfunctional. Although adopted in 1874 it was not manufactured or issued until fall 1876. Rare! Only about six thousand were made

 

PHOTO O (above): M1879 Pattern Curry Comb or Merrill’s Modified curry comb. Modified by “re-adopting” the “Y” frame for more strength, the resulting complaints of patent infringement by various manufacturers although without litigation, nevertheless led to its delay and ultimate demise. Approved in 1879 it was not manufactured until late 1882 then replaced in 1885. A “US” is stamped on the handle. Rare. Only about five thousand were made. Author’s Collection.

 

DRAWING P (above): M1885 Pattern. The flexible body was made of black leather (4 3/4 x 5 inches), three rivets held the each of the four double rows of teeth. The handle was also of black leather embossed with “US”. While the first official military comb made of leather they were not new to the army. A similar pattern was patented in 1863 by John W. Rockwell with at least one thousand made for issue to the Federal forces.

 

PHOTO Q: M1904 flexible back comb..

 

 

PHOTO R: M1912

 

PHOTO S: M1913:

 

 

TEST BOX PHOTO:

PHOTO X (above): Note the flat and ornately curved handle on the M1862 comb excavated from the General Meade barge. The comb on right with the “step-up” handle is a more modern early 20th century commercial copy of the same government pattern comb. Despite hundreds of thousands of war time era curry combs being made very few, non-excavated and intact examples survive. Author’s collection.

 

PHOTO Y (above): The Allegheny Arsenal Pattern curry comb. Barlely visable across the back strap are the embossed words “Allegheny Arsenal”. Several of this these were dug by Don Mindemann in Maryland, near an area called the Binard defensive line, the Northern line of defenses for Harpers Ferry, W. Va.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

　

]]> http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?feed=rss2&p=1048 Confederate Horse in Camp & Field http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=1035 http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=1035#comments Sun, 15 May 2011 18:11:16 +0000 Ken R. Knopp http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=1035

 

                                              THE CONFEDERATE HORSE IN CAMP AND FIELD

                                                                       By Ken R Knopp

 

The legendary if not romantic image of the Southern cavalier is one of a dashing mounted Knight boldly and tenaciously fighting with chivalrous good humor until finally exhausted and over come by the sheer weight of the numerically superior Yankee hoards. Unquestionably, the reality was far different. Yet, while even today’s revisionists still uphold the bravery, fortitude and remarkable cavalry campaigns of the men that rode under Stuart, Mosby, Morgan, Forrest, Shelby and others, what about the noble steed that carried them across the sacred field of honor and into legend. How did the horse figure in the Southern war effort? Moreover, what was the reality of war for them?

 

 

 

In the mid-19th century with the notable exception of the Thoroughbred, there were no established breeds or associations in America as we know them today. Although common horses were loosely categorized with names such as American, Morgan, Arab, Kentucky Saddle horses, Normans, Canadians and Spanish the fact is, the horseman of the period sought to breed or procure size, confirmation and mind-set in their animals for practical, everyday applications such as hunter, plantation, roadster, pacer, charger, draught, hack, etc. For them, the goal was function rather than form as is found in the classical sense of today’s blood lines.

Due to their value for racing, the American Thoroughbred had the only recorded breed documentation at the time of the war. All other horses were in fact, “Grade” with varying degrees of other classes yet most having some of the “blooded” Thoroughbred or Arab running through their veins. Nevertheless, quite often horses were given assumed titles during the period such as Morgan, Virginia Roadster, Kentucky Saddler, Texas Pony, etc. While modern identities were to later emerge from some of them, at that time these monikers were more vague types, regional distinctions or used for sales exploitation rather than as a true breed. 1.

Horses, like people have personalties and peculiarities. Some are calm, some nervous, some fast or slow, weak or strong, healthy or habitually sick or even accident prone. Some horses are brave while others are cowardly. In war, there were those that were slow and lazy until they sensed the excitement of a fight and others turned entirely uncontrollable and prone to panic in battle. Horses like the men that rode them could be trained in the art of war but were similarly flesh and blood with feelings, character and a mind of their own. In any event, when the typical Southerner left the farm, town or plantation astride his gelding, mare or on rare occasions a stallion, it was upon the above christened and sometimes fickle equines that he rode to war.

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 horse equipment. All other horses such as artillery and transportation animals were to be provided (and branded “CS”) by the quartermaster department. Cavalry 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. 2. This measure adopted in the belief the volunteer would take better care of his own property than a government issued one. Unfortunately, rather quickly it had the undesirable effect of severely limiting the effectiveness of the Confederate cavalry. The unlucky 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 or Federal capture. The used but useful horse 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 the 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.

The valuations placed upon a horse were at pre war prices which with the high inflation of the fast devaluing Confederate dollar were rather 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 $7000 or more. The effect was devastating. Horses were not only unaffordable to most everyone but often, the bravest and best troopers were forever lost to the service. In subsequent years there were many attempts to address this inadequacy but the Confederate Congress was never able to remedy the injustice. 3.

Early in the war and until May 1863, when a horse needed replacing the trooper was given leave (usually twenty days) to obtain another. Later, it became common practice that only reliable men were given leave to remount themselves. 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 substantial breeding regions of Missouri, Kentucky, west and middle Tennessee and western Virginia, the South soon lost access to its most critical areas for replacement animals. Unfortunately, the high cost and difficulty a trooper had in finding another horse caused many soldiers to be absent from their commands for extended periods. Their 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 was to be 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. 4. As a result many men changed service at this time. 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 Nathan Bedford 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 with the cavalry. 5.

The practical employment of the cavalry horse in the field is an interesting and largely untold story. As a result of the above order, horses became in effect both the property of the soldier and the government. Yet, 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 official permission. Still, with little real control over this issue the practice continued throughout the war. 6.

In the field, when a trooper was in the hospital or otherwise absent from the command his horse was considered his property and normally kept in camp, with the wagons or, more often due to shortages, sold to or 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. 7.

Officer’s horses were exclusively private not public property. Whether in quarters or in the field an officer’s horses were often cared for by their servants or at least the servants of some other officer in his company or mess. It was common for an officer to have two or three horses if they had the means. Again, cared for and ridden by the servants usually in the rear with the regimental wagons or other wagon trains and often loaned to brother officers that were without.

One very fruitful but imprecise source of new mounts were captured horses. When horses 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”. For example, scouts were often allowed the privilege to sell the horses they brought out from behind enemy lines. Captures made by individual troopers apparently varied among cavalry commands. In most units they were allowed to keep what they captured but in others they were not. In Forrest’s command his officers and Escort Company got “pick of the litter” in captured horses, arms and equipments. As can be imagined, this sometimes caused a bit of friction with the private that had captured a fine animal sometimes at risk of his own life. In most cases, excess captured horses were scattered among the command as needed or to the dismounted brigade. 8.

No doubt, the single most important issue for horses in the Confederacy was feed or rather, the lack of it. According to regulations the full ration per horse per day was fourteen pounds of forage (hay) and twelve pounds of oats, corn or barley. Despite their mounts being private property officers were also given a feed ration in war time. Generals could feed up to four horses at government expense; majors, colonels, captains and staff officers three each and lieutenants two horses. Public horses (artillery and transportation) were also provided rations at the public expense. 9.

Although anecdotal evidence suggest officer’s horses in the field fared slightly better (often at personal expense) than a trooper’s horse it is doubtful the average Confederate horse saw very many days of full rations in his short and sad career in the cavalry. In fact, less than half rations were the norm if the poor beast got any at all. There is plentiful official and incidental evidence of horses on campaign going without feed for extended periods. In camp they often fared but little better. The larger issue for the South was not a shortage of feed and forage but rather the lack of sufficient transportation. Grazing the animal, while inadequate was sometimes the predominant or only source of food. Quite often this had a profound effect on military strategy too. In both 1863 and 1864 early spring raids or campaigns by the Federal’s in Virginia caught the Confederate cavalry thinly picketing critical areas or slow to respond and offer resistence due to the fact they were so widely scattered in order to be fed. 10.

It is a sad but often overlooked fact, that in addition to battlefield death, the war exposed horses and mules to unbelievable suffering and hardship. For these pitiable beasts of burden, the large, mobile armies often meant inadequate feed, exposure to extreme weather, exhaustive work, bottomless mud, filthy stable conditions and epidemic diseases that had never before been seen in this country in such proportions. Tragically, countless thousands perished, or were rendered unserviceable, by common maladies such as “scratches” or “grease-heel”, “sore-tongue”, hoof-rot, chapped hock, founder, “fistula”, saddle sores, lameness and sheer exhaustion. In the winter of 1862-63, then again in the winter of 1863-64 Stuart’s horses were severely afflicted with an epidemic of sore tongue, glanders and grease heel which killed some and rendered many more unfit for service.11. Throughout the war these ailments routinely affected other commands as well. Yet, death by disease was sometimes the more merciful.

In May 1863 Capt. Charles F Adams, 1st Mass. (Federal) Cavalry wrote a letter home to his mother describing horrors that were probably common to both sides. “Do you know how cavalry moves? It never goes out of a walk, and four miles an hour is very rapid marching “killing to horses” as we describe it. To cover forty miles is nearly fifteen hours march. The suffering is trifling for the men…but with the horses it is otherwise and you have no idea of their sufferings….A horse must go until he can’t be spurred any further… and then the rider must get another horse as soon as he can seize one. The horse is, in active campaign, saddled on an average about fifteen hours out of twenty four. He has no hay and only such other feed as he can pick up during halts. The usual water he drinks is brook water, so muddy by the passage of the column as to be of the color of chocolate. Of course, sore backs are our greatest trouble. Backs soon get feverish under the saddle and the first day’s march swells them; after that day by day the trouble grows. No care can stop it. Imagine a horse with his withers swollen to three times the natural size, and with a volcanic, running sore pouring matter down each side, and you have a case with which every cavalry officer is daily called upon to deal, and you imagine a horse which has still to be ridden until he lays down in sheer suffering under the saddle. The air of Virginia is literally burdened today with the stench of dead horses, federal and confederate. You pass them on every road and find them in every field, ….Poor brutes! How it would astonish and terrify you and all others at home with your sleek, well-fed animals, to see the weak, gaunt, rough animals, with each rib visible and hipbones starting through the flesh on which these “dashing cavalry raids” were executed. It would knock romance out of you.” 12. If war is hell on humans it is ever more cruel to horses.

Apparently beginning about 1863, horses were routinely inspected by the Confederate government or by regimental officers and graded as “serviceable” or unserviceable”. The unserviceable animals 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” these camps were often made up of slightly disabled troopers, men with disabled horses or no horse at all. 13.

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 Southern 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.

Battlefield death, wounds, disease and exhaustion claimed incredible numbers of horses during the war. It was rare indeed for a man to ride only one horse during his service. Most cavalrymen went through several. So to stay in the fight the undaunted trooper had to keep mounted. As the war continued this often necessitated the use of less than desirable animals such as unbroken colts, brood mares and even stallions. 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 was 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”. 14. Notwithstanding, impressment not only continued the rest of the war but became increasingly abusive as desperation grew and, law and order broke down.

By mid 1863, the lack of serviceable horses had fallen to such a low point that urgent options were considered in the attempt to remedy the situation. Quartermaster General Myers speculated that 8-10,000 horses and mules were immediately needed in the service. 15. 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 eke 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. 16.

In the fall of 1863 another good idea considered and apparently adopted was 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.16. 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 a pitiful fifteen percent had been returned to service. The remainder had died, been lost, stolen or condemned and sold. In general, the major reason for this disappointing failure was disease, a lack of forage and that many were sent to the rear far too exhausted to recover. The mortality rate among cavalry horses was apparently the worst followed by the artillery horses then the transportation animals. Interestingly, mules for the transportation service not only fared much better with a 57% recovery rate but were considered five times more durable than a horse. 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. 17. One can only imagine how the poor cavalry horse must have fared.

As the war continued, the issue of Confederate horse supply grew increasingly desperate. Out west, N.B. Forrest routinely had a brigade of dismounted troopers marching as infantry in his command and twice ordered raids into Kentucky for nothing more than to capture horses. Around Atlanta, despite shrinking, interior lines of defense Wheeler’s outnumbered and dwindling horseman struggled to counter Sherman’s cavalry operations. The summer of 1864 also found Robert E Lee locked in a debilitating, defensive struggle behind the trenches around Petersburg. The lack of horses in his Army of Northern Virginia had by this time become so devastating that many field artillery batteries had been reduced in mobility, whole brigades of infantry were without wagon teams for provisions and of Lee’s severely depleted but still available cavalry over one-quarter were dismounted. About that time in a private letter General Lee prophetically told President Davis that “Obtaining an increase in supply of horses, and recruiting our cavalry….I believe, depends the issue of the campaign in Va.”. 18.

As the end drew near the grave need for cavalry finally forced the Confederate Congress to act. In a law passed in mid-February 1865 and approved by Davis on the 23rd (in the Congressional Journals but never printed) required that the Quartermaster was to provide horses to dismounted cavalrymen. 19. Sadly again, too little too late. By this time, with the Confederacy showing the gaunt, exhausted pale of death, there were simply no horses to be had.

There can be no doubt the collapse of the Confederacy was in no small part a result of the lack of horses. Beginning in 1863, a growing deficiency in horses crippled Southern military operations in the east and elsewhere and therefore shortened the life of the Confederacy. Still, 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.

Despite little official support, adequate food, extreme exposure and dangerous, exhausting work the brave, resolute trooper and his horse suffered together. To some men the horse was just transportation, a tool with no more emotional attachment than any other necessary instrument of war such as his gun or cartridge box. However, surrounded by cruelty, hardship, constant danger and death for most trooper’s his horse was his partner, his daily companion and life line. Each needed the other. So just as with the human members of his company from these shared experiences a strong but distinctive emotional bond often developed between man and horse that was rarely expressed and is not easily understood in today’s motorized, technology driven society.

In a short, insignificant skirmish early in the morning of November 1st 1862, Lt. George Baylor of the 12th Virginia and his horse were both wounded. Baylor’s wound to the leg was slight but the wound to his horse proved fatal. “I led the noble animal, which I dearly loved, and whose very life seemed bound to mine by dangers shared and daily companionship, to the roadside, where she laid down on the green turf. Her breathing too plainly indicated that death was near. As her eyes rested on me in fondness and affection, human nature could not resist, and, kneeling down by her side, and clasping my arms about her neck, I wept. When I arose she was dead. She died, and with her life passed away my hopes and aspirations for her….The dream of my young life vanished, and the hopes of the future were dissipated.” 20.

Clearly, the romantic dream of the Knightly Southern cavalier and his noble war horse are long gone, shattered by the cruel realities of war but thankfully their story and the legend remains alive and well.

 

 
A shattered battery of the Confederate Washington Artillery at Fredericksburg, Va. Battlefield death was not the only fate awaiting horses in the war. Malnutrition, disease and sheer exhaustion claimed far more horses than combat.

 

 

SOURCES:

Official orders, government actions and correspondence are duly footnoted. However, the bulk of the insights that reference the reality of the horse in the day to day life of Confederate service come from the diaries, journals, war time letters, post war reminiscences and recollections of the actual participants themselves. Quite literally, hundreds were consulted and therefore too numerous to list here however, when practical and relevant a few sources are noted as representative of common practice.

1. An accurate history of the Morgan Horse bloodline is a debatable issue. In 1857 Daniel Chipman Linsley published a book called The Morgan Horse, A Premium Essay on the Origins, History and Characteristics of the Remarkable American Breed of Horse.” It includes a section on origins, pedigrees and provides lineage.

However, it is somewhat dubious and not considered by historians or the Morgan Horse Association as a true recording of their modern bloodlines.

Although pre-war American Thoroughbred bloodlines are also a bit fuzzy they have been traced back into the 1700’s. Accurate recordings began to appear in 1865 in the newspaper, “The Turf, Field and Farm” under Col. S.D. Bruce. The official record of the American Jockey Club was first published in book form in 1868 again by Bruce.

2. March 1, 1861, Sec. 7, No. 48. March 6, 1861 Act of Provisional Congress. OR’s., Ser IV, Vol. 1, Pgs 126-127.

Regulations of the Army of the Confederate States, Pg 93.

3. Dozens of various diaries, journals and reminiscences of Confederate soldiers.

Reminiscences of Four Years as a Private Solder in the Confederate Army, 1861-1865, By John Gill, Baltimore Sun Printing Office, 1904, Reprinted Cornell University Library, Pgs. 95 and 118.

Autobiography of Arab, By E. Prioleau Henderson, 1907, Reprinted 1991 by Guild Bindery Press, Oxford, Miss.

General Robert E Lee’s Horse Supply, 1862-1865, By Charles Ramsdell, American Historical Review, Vol. 35, 1929-1930, Pg 771.

4. May 25, 1863, General Orders #67, Samuel Cooper, Adj & Insp Gen. Copy of original on file with author. OR’s, Ser. III, Vol. II, Pg 568.

5. General Robert E Lee’s Horse Supply, 1862-1865, By Charles Ramsdell, American Historical Review, Vol. 35, 1929-1930, Pg 761-763, 776 and 778.

6. Gen. Orders #83, Adj. Insp. Gen. Office, Copy of original on file with author.

7. Dozens of various diaries, journals and reminiscences of Confederate soldiers.

Yours Till Death, The Civil War Letters of John W Cotton, Tuscaloosa, Ala., University of Alabama Press, 1951, pgs. 9,15,53 -54,62-63,81,99,79.

8. Reminiscences of Four Years as a Private Soldier in the Confederate Army, 1861-1865, By John Gill, Baltimore Sun Printing Office, 1904, Reprinted Cornell University Library, pg. 85.

Dozens of various diaries, journals and reminiscences of Confederate soldiers.

9. Regulations For the Army of the Confederate States, J. W. Randolph, Richmond Va. 1863, Reprinted by the National Historical Society, Harrisburg, Pa 1980, pg 103.

10. Dozens of various diaries, journals and reminiscences of Confederate soldiers.

General Robert E Lee’s Horse Supply, 1862-1865, By Charles Ramsdell, American Historical Review, Vol. 35, 1929-1930.

11. IBID.

Reminiscences of Four Years as a Private Solder in the Confederate Army, 1861-1865, By John Gill, Baltimore Sun Printing Office, 1904, Reprinted Cornell University Library, Pg 79.

 

12. May 12, 1863, Potomac Creek, Capt Charles F Adams, 1st Mass. Cavalry to his Mother. A Cycle of Adams’ Letters. Houghton Mifflin Co, Boston and New York, 1920.

It is estimated by historians that over 1.4 million pitiable horses and mules died on both sides during the war.

13. Dozens of various diaries, journals and reminiscences of Confederate soldiers.

Reminiscences of a Mississippian, By Col. Frank A. Montgomery, Robert Clarke Co. Press, Cincinnati, 1901. Pg. 332-343.

Yours till Death, Civil War Letters of John W Cotton, Lucille Griffith- Editor, Birmingham, Ala., Univ. of Ala. Press, 1951, Pg 63.

Lone Star Defenders, A Chronicle of the Third Texas Cavalry, Ross Brigade, By S. B Barro, Neale Publishing Com. 1908, Pg 67.

14. May 2, 1864, General Orders, No. 45, Adj and Insp Gen. Office. OR’s. Ser. V, Vol. III, Pg. 369.

15. July 4, 1863, Myers to Seddon, OR’s, Ser. IV, Vol. II, Pg. 616.

16. Throughout the war there was a constant chatter among field commanders, at the War Department and in the President’s office concerning the growing scarcity of horses and its impact on field operations. Several ideas were adopted and others considered including purchasing horses and mules from Texas, Mexico and the Trans-Mississippi but little if anything ever came of it. March 4, 1863, Myers to Davis, OR’s Ser. V, Vol, II, pg 417.

April 13, 1864, Bragg to Johnston, OR’s, Serv. IV, Vol. III, Pg 293.

May 13, 1863, General Orders, No. 60, Adj Insp. Gen. Office. Copy of original on file with author.

July 5, 1864, Lee’s Confidential Dispatches to Davis, Douglas S. Freeman, New York, 1915, Pg 273.

17. General Robert E Lee’s Horse Supply, 1862-1865, By Charles Ramsdell, American Historical Review, Vol. 35, 1929-1930, Pgs. 765, 772-773.

As a rule most mules are not good under saddle and generally make a poor substitute for a cavalry horse. When necessary, some troopers would reluctantly resort to a mule as a temporary replacement for his horse.

18. A Battle From the Start, By Brian Steel Wills, Harper Collins, New York, NY. 1992, Pg 178-179.

Sherman’s Horsemen, By David Evans, Indiana University Press, Indianapolis, Ind. 1996.

General Robert E Lee’s Horse Supply, 1862-1865, By Charles Ramsdell, American Historical Review, Vol. 35, 1929-1930, Pg. 768.

Lee’s Confidential Dispatches to Davis, Douglas S. Freeman, New York, 1915, Pg 273.

August 1, 1865, Lee to Wade Hampton, Address on the Life and Character of Gen. Robert E. Lee, By Wade Hampton, Baltimore, 1872, Pg 45.

19. General Robert E Lee’s Horse Supply, 1862-1865, By Charles Ramsdell, American Historical Review, Vol. 35, 1929-1930. Pg 768.

20. From Bull Run to Bull Run, By George Baylor, B.F. Publishing Company, Richmond Va., 1900, pg 62.

  　

]]> http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?feed=rss2&p=1035 Reenactor: Ten Ways to Find the Authentic Experience http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=959 http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=959#comments Sun, 01 Aug 2010 02:56:39 +0000 Ken R. Knopp http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=959                          TEN WAYS TO FIND
                   THE AUTHENTIC EXPERIENCE

                                                                       By Ken R Knopp

 

                                     Originally published in the Camp Chase Gazette (July 2010 Issue)

　

Do you want to get more enjoyment from your reenacting experience? Well, first humble yourself! Keep an open mind. No one alive today knows what it was really like. There is always something to learn and experience for even the most seasoned reenacting veteran. Here’s a few ways to make it more fun. Remember, enjoying your reenactment experience is both a process and a journey And, therein, lies the rewards.

 

1. UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE DOING:

Read the books!! Read the diaries, reminiscences, OR’s and lots of books on the subjects that interest you! Carefully examine the photos available. First, understand the experience then…. “live” it!

2. DECIDE….
Do you want to be P.E.C. (Period, Everyday, Common) or, a “First Person Persona”. Its your choice! But, be ready/able to document your character and the unusual.

3. IMMERSE YOURSELF INTO THE ERA & THE EFFORT:
Is it an early, mid or a late war impression? Who and “where” are you from? How “should” you look? Most the fun of this hobby is in the preparation, planning, building, etc. Immerse yourself into the period with the right clothes, equipment, accoutrements and food. Consider making or building your “own” kit!

4. PAY ATTENTION TO THE DETAILS!
Simply put: Going authentic grows and rewards in the small details such as proper hardware, “defarbed” weapons, period cut and finish of equipment, clothes, period rolled & packaged cartridges and, eating period food. Its not about cost or having the finest, fanciest stuff from the biggest “name” maker….its about having the “right” stuff and experiencing and “feeling the moment”!

5. BUY QUALITY THE “FIRST” TIME!
You want quality and period correct. Most of the time its costs only a little more to buy a proper period cut garment (even with hand sewn button holes) or accoutrements from a quality supplier, than junk from a low-end sutler. Don’t take just anyone’s word for what is right. Check the “Search Engine” on the “Authentic Campaigner” web site, ask questions….and buy only once!

6. SIMPLE IS BETTER/LESS IS BEST!
Question: Do you really “need” all of that stuff? Veteran soldiers were practical men. Simple and easy worked for them and it will for you.

7. TRAVEL LIGHT!
The average infantry or cavalry soldier in the field did not have “A-frame” tents, cots, wooden slat chairs, fire grates and three square meals a day. Quite the opposite. For example, believe it or not….ordnance returns show an average of only 50% - 60% of western Confederate cavalrymen carried a haversack or canteen. Moreover, only about 40% - 50% had a pistol!! That means about 60% DID NOT!!! Not two…not even one with extra cylinders! Records also suggest not a lot of western Confederate troopers at mid war had saddle bags opting instead for just a blanket roll. Less stuff means less expense, less weight and less to keep up with and fall apart. LESS IS BEST!

8. DO WHAT THEY DID:
Travel, fight, eat, sleep and live the way they did. What better way to capture the real experience. March, carry and wear the right stuff. Sleep on the ground, eat what they ate! Anything less is just “costumed camping”!

9. MENTOR, LOAN, “SHARE” THE EXPERIENCE!!
Mentor the new guy, loan everything you can to him, bring him “in”. Educate him!! What is more rewarding than giving to someone else the thrilling experiences that you have had and loved? What is more fun and more authentic? Going into an event with four “super authentic” guys or a “full” company?

10. NEVER STOP STRIVING FOR AUTHENTICITY!
(and, never quite reading). Think outside the box!! Don’t justify what you already own as “correct” or “acceptable”. Look at each item you have. “Do I really NEED it? If you do then research it. Then ask yourself, “Is this item absolutely correct?” Think about ways to improve each item you have by rebuilding, replacement or discarding it. This truly is the FUN of the hobby! Being “authentic” is not a destination. It’s a journey.
 

 

　

]]> http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?feed=rss2&p=959 What’s New On This Site??…. http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=923 http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=923#comments Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:43:34 +0000 maddnoter http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=923 HEY! Just added alot of recently acquired…NEW STUFF! for sale on “Relics & Reproductions”! Including our newest addition….Mid 19th century “period correct” leather care products! Leather Wax and “Crown Soap” from period recipies. The finest (perhaps the “only”) available in the hobby today (pgs 24 & 25). Also added some saddles, Federal halters and always ….A HUGE selection of original and reproduction bits. …LOOK!!!

NEW TO THE CAVALRY HOBBY!!  INTRODUCING…Paul Muller Reproductions of Confederate blacksmith-made bits including the CS copy of the Dragoon bit, CS Artillery bit and,….the Selma Arsenal Confederate bit…..the ONLY documented, “arsenal-specific” Confederate issue cavalry bit. Blacksmith-made copy from an original in my collection.

LOOK!!… PHOTO GALLERIES!! Just added many new photos of CS uniforms, accoutrements and, Indian War Saddlery!!  And, recently,  new photos of civilian saddles, mounted Federal Cavalrymen, Confederate Saddles, Confederate Horse Equipments and Dragoon saddle photo galleries!!. All from public and private collections, some have NEVER before been published or seen the light of day. 

LOOK!  UPDATED! NEW!! Confederate Cavalry Ordnance & Inspection Reports: For Eastern & Western Cavalry Commands…..Many “new” CS cavarly regiments!! Reports of articles “on hand” in the regiment showing types and numbers of arms; numbers of accoutrements and horse equipment. Most include a brief historical summary of the regmiment’s service and officers. Look under….”For Sale”….”Original CS Cavalry Inspection Reports”…

ALWAYS NEW “STUFF” ….on “Relics & Reproductions” Keep an eye out.  I have alot of really neat, sometimes rare horse equipment,… very “attractively” priced!  The really good stuff (some one of a kind) stays up only a few days before it is purchased. So, if you haven’t looked lately take a look now and come back often.

 

Ken’s UP coming Events……  For 2012………….

Feb. 9-12: Ft Donelson Nat’l Park Clarksville, Tenn. (A/C Authentic Event) COLD BUT MEMORABLE!

March 29- April 1st: 150th Anniversary of the Battle of Shiloh reenactment…A/C Adjunct Event including The Confederate 20 mile march from Corinth to Shiloh, Forrest’s Cavalry at Falling Timbers, and the 11th Illinois meeting and escorting the 500 man 15th Iowa Federal infantry as they disembarked from the Paddlewheel boat at Pittsburg Landing, Fabulous!! Large numbers at the reenactment which was great but also incredible AC adjunct events from which authentics can “live” the experiences.

April 4th: World premier of the “new” documentary movie for the Shiloh NPS Battlefield! Incredibly well done production with “superior” story lines, authenticity, effects, and music. The Shiloh NPS Unit held a fantastic premier event that may be equaled but never exceeded in its “class”.  A mini-Hollywood production, this new film is worth the trip to Shiloh!

October 5-7 150th Anniversary of the Battle of Perryville, Ky….A “Biggie” and the event organizers  promise it to be a high quality, first class 150th!

Oct. 25-28 Westville!! (Lumpkin Ga.) Surrender of Secession!!  A rare chance to “live” the period in an “all original” and complete 1850’s town. The final installment in the trilogy. IMHO, this is the hobby’s most unique and rewarding event.

Dec. 1-2: Nashville/Franklin Civil War Show. Always “America’s Largest” CW Show!

Last updated: April 22, 2012……………………………..

]]> http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?feed=rss2&p=923 Civilian Bridles of Antebellum America http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=903 http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=903#comments Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:51:22 +0000 Ken R. Knopp http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=903

 CIVILIAN BRIDLES

OF ANTEBELLUM AMERICA 

 

By Ken R Knopp

 

 

 As artifacts, 19th century civilian (non-military) bridles are very difficult to identify. Their common appearance and similarities in pattern and materials throughout the late 18th, the 19th and early 20th centuries often render exact dating of them nearly impossible. More importantly or sadly, few examples remain. More of a tool, the bridle unlike a saddle, lacked sentimental value that would have made them keepsakes. Exposure to the elements, hard usage and difficulty in caring for them often relegated them to the corner of the barn where they dry rotted until eventually thrown away. The bit might be kept but few early civilian bridles have survived. As a result determining their common Antebellum appearance presents a problem.

Civilian bridles of the period came in two basic types- those for coach (or buggies) and wagon teams and, those for riding. Riding bridles differed greatly from coach or wagon bridle patterns that tended to be more durable, decorative and have (but not always) blinders. Our study here will focus primarily on those for riding. While there is a lot of great post war information and illustrations about civilian bridles to be found, those from the early 19th century and even war time era are few and far between. Photography was not widely available until the 1850’s and quality photographs of horses exceedingly more rare. Military patterns provide some guidance as do paintings and drawings but without other decisive documentation such as museum records or family history dating an otherwise period bridle is often speculative at best.

 

 

PHOTO # 1: Fancy coach or team bridle. Note the fancy face piece, tassels, skillful sometimes colored leather work and stitching. The winkers (a.k.a. blinders) were round or oval for coach bridles and often had brasses, fancy monogram stitching or the owner’s initials. For light buggy or road harness (wagon teams) the winkers were generally more plain and squared. Most team bridle bits had different mouthpieces than riding bridles (rarely using a port but rather a snaffle or straight bit) but for coach and buggies, the cheeks of the bit were often equally as ornate as the bridle- all meant to illustrate the wealth of the owner. 1875 Harness Maker’s Manual.

 

                                                                                                                                                             

 

PHOTO # 2: Very common men’s riding bridle headstall of the period. Note the cast iron “wire” horse shoe buckles which were probably the most common bridle buckle of the pre war 19th century. They were easy to make and found on all types of early civilian, military and Confederate bridles as well as other applications. Photo by author courtesy the Atlanta History Center.

 

 

 

Nevertheless, there are methods. Period harness maker’s manuals are tremendously revealing as is identification of their appearance through their patterns and “Lorinery” (hardware) components. The most obvious of these, bridle bits, are often questionable however because they were sometimes detachable. Yet, certain types of buckles and rivets can be quite useful. In summary, for a better understanding of period bridles we must therefore rely on all of the above evidence and thankfully, include the valuable contributions provided by relic hunters. 1.

The purpose of the bridle was simple: to hold the bit and effect its use to control the horse. Riding bridles as a utilitarian tool have remained virtually the same for centuries consisting of two cheek pieces, a crown piece, often a brow band and occasionally (usually on military or coach horses) a nose band. Nineteenth century civilian bridles were in fact, not much different from the earlier patterns except in bit deployment and materials.

In general, the Antebellum riding bridle took its name from the style of bit attached to it such as “plain snaffle”, “Port”, “Pelham” or, “Port & Bradoon” bridle. The basic headstall included a crown piece, two cheek pieces with or without billets and buckles, front piece (brow band), throat latch and reins. All being made up most often in matching materials. Two basic riding bridle patterns were employed. A “plain” bridle headstall that held a single bit and, the very popular double cheek bridle that employed two bits- a port bit and a bradoon bit. However, another popular variation of the plain bridle was the “halter-bridle” which combined the bridle and halter as one with the capacity for easily removing the bit. While often employed in the military its civilian use was well known in the period too. In the early to mid-19th century the common men’s riding bridle were much less varied in character than that found on military, coach or ladies bridles. Yet by late in the century these lines were considerably more blurred. Ornamentation consisted principally of cross face pieces, tassels and brass work. 2. So, what were the materials of the bridle headstall?

 

 

PHOTO # 3: Double Cheek Port & Bradoon Riding Bridle. Two bits were used- a port for more control and a snaffle for light use. This type bridle was very common to the period both in civilian and military use.

 

 

                                                                                                                         

 

 

 

PHOTO # 4: “Plain” Pelham Bridle. Antebellum riding bridles were usually named for their bits. This “Plain” bridle headstall employs a double rein Pelham bit (similarly effective as the double bit ” Port & Bradoon”) and metal curb chain typical of the pre war period.

 

 

 

Leather had been in common use for this item for centuries and of course, by the 19th century was still the most dominant material. Three kinds of leather were generally used for bridles- black harness, russet bridle leather and buff. Light weights were always used, with the cheek pieces and reins cut from the firmest part of the leather side. English russet was most preferred. Buff leather was only used when matching to saddle seats or knee pads of rough out or buckskin. Beyond that, the use of leather in wide ranging cuts, stains and finishes such as round, layered, waxed, enameled, patent, etc. was as variant as the owners personal desire for the bridle’s appearance and only limited by the ability to make it and cost. 3. Other, more economical indigenous materials were also in common use especially on the frontier such as rawhide, woven horse hair, Spanish Moss, rope and even bark. Round leather and gilded cloth was very popular at this time as was newer materials coming into the common realm like cotton webbing for inexpensive, plain bridles. One fairly consistent factor was the width of the material. Bridles had to be strong and sturdy to fit and hold a variety of bits (and buckles). As a result, whatever the materials employed the width ranged from ½ inch to one inch but the “standard” width of the cheek pieces tended to be 3/4’s of an inch. 4.

The stitching of the leather, either in general or, of buckles and other components was hand sewn at six to ten stitches per inch and often using hand spun thread. Even during the war, it was rare for a sewing machine to have been used but it did become more common late in the century. Hand sewing can be distinguished from machine by carefully viewing and measuring the consistency of spacing between holes. Copper rivets were rarely used on bridles before the war and split (tubular) rivets were a post war (1870’s) invention.

Hardware or buckles, are another good method in identifying or dating a bridle. Illustrations and surviving descriptions of those available in harness shops of the period are very telling. Being expensive, brass buckles of various patterns were popular on more “high-end” bridles as was occasionally leather covered (hand sewn) buckles. While iron, cast and finished with paint, japanned or hand forged, was more common on the “everyman” bridle. Again, those in use at the farther reaches of civilization often did not use buckles but employed the materials at hand in the form of latigo ties and buttons. Buckle patterns varied widely in styles such as sunk-bar, frame, horseshoe either of cast iron or brass, often they were hand forged. Roller buckles were increasingly common during the period too. They may go back as far as Medieval times but the means to mass produce them in America was not in common use until just prior to the Civil War. Excavations by relic hunters over the years have thankfully provided us with surviving examples of many of these buckles. 5.

One of the more colorful aspects in the appearance of 19th century civilian bridles were their decorative enhancements which were by design an indication of social status. This was particularly true of coach and buggy bridles. Wagon bridles could be decorative but were generally more plain and durable than coach bridles where there was a lot of opportunity for the skilled harness maker to exercise design, embellishment and taste. However, for men’s riding bridles, especially those in the east, the plain, conservative, Puritan/Victorian bent of 19th century American society was clearly dominant. As noted above bridle hardware such as the type buckles used had their popular styles of the day but other indulgences of individual taste for men’s riding bridles were generally restrained to that of fancy stitching and rosettes. For example, brass or other variant rosettes were typical to the common bridles while fine leather (often layered) rosettes to high-end men’s bridles. Other more fanciful add-ons such as tassels and face cross plates were limited to military bridles, ladies dress bridles or, the upper class and their team equipment as a means to illustrate their wealth. 6.

 

 

 

PHOTO # 5: Ladies Dress Bridle Headstall (without bit) Note the fancy tassel, combination of round and flat leather and, rosettes employed to suggest a graceful feminine touch, wealth or both.

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, farther west there appeared to be less constraint and, often a certain geographic flair. For example, in Texas or the far west, Indian influences could be found in the use of feathers, horse hair and beads or, a strong often gaudy, Spanish influence with colorful designs of braided leather, cloth, horse hair, silver plates and conchos. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt decorative embellishments of early 19th century civilian bridles were limited by social proprieties, a lack of exposure, access to materials and financial costs. 7.

In summary, bridles from the Antebellum period differed widely but had important functions and characteristics. Coach and buggy bridles differed from wagon (road harness) bridles; the three from riding bridles; men’s bridles from ladies bridles and all in material, hardware and style. While clearly well known and accepted at the time these differences reflected their purpose and the social structure of the period in ways much less obvious and understood today.

 

APPRECIATION: The author wishes to dedicate this article to….my great friend John Ashworth. God Bless him! Thanks goes to my buddy David Jarnagin (always) for his leather expertise, Patrick McAlister for the inspiration and my surgeon Dr James Antinise for neck surgery which afforded me the time off to research and write this article. Lets not do that again!

 

 

PHOTO # 6: T.J. “Stonewall” Jackson’s horse “Little Sorrel” and his bridle. The use of rings was a common 19th Century bridle configuration. Note the round leather and buckles employed. Photos by author courtesy the V.M.I. Museum, Lexington, Va.

 

             Fancy Bridles with face pieces and tassles.      

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                 　

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHOTO # 7: CS Gen. Patrick Cleburne’s bridle reputedly a pick up from the battlefield of Franklin. Note its round leather cheek pieces, sunk-bar frame buckles and rosettes. The bit is a straight-bar snaffle wagon (mule) bit, not a typical riding bit and therefore not likely original to Gen. Cleburne’s use of the bridle. Photo courtesy the Museum of the Confederacy, Richmond Va.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                            

PHOTO # 8: Common Antebellum Civilian Bridle &Harness Buckles: Many variations exist in brass and iron.

Top Row, L - R

1. Early Hand Forged Square buckle

2.-3. Fancy 18th Century Scotch brass harness or gear buckles

4. “Spade” buckle of brass.

5. Beveled iron buckle with very common brass sheathing.

 

Middle Top Row, L- R

1. Flat Top Turned Up buckle, (aka “Band” buckle)

2. Sunk Bar “Conway” buckle of brass. Late 19th century military versions were somewhat different.

3. Sunk Bar frame buckle with “crown” top.

4. Oval Sunk Bar Frame Buckle.

Middle Bottom Row, L- R:

1. Very common 18th-19th Century cast iron (or brass) horse shoe buckle sometimes called “Wire Bridle” buckles. 2. Crescent Buckle (aka Philadelphia,or Union Buckles)

3. Cast Brass Horseshoe. These were very common civilian and military buckles made of either brass, brass sheathed or iron.

4. Cast brass beveled buckle variation.

5. Fancy buckles were often leather covered. This is an imitation

leather covered buckle of cast iron.

Bottom Row, Roller buckles. Early 19th century “wire” rollers were machine formed and often had hand forged tongues. L- R:

1. Roller buckle of square stock from Mexican War battle of Buena Vista.

2. Square “wire” Roller.

3. “Barrel” “wire” Roller Buckle.

4. Common cast iron roller buckle.

 

 

                                                     

 

PHOTO # 9: While modern examples the concept is the same- to mount the bridle headstall or reins without the use of a buckle. On left is a leather “button” and right, a latigo tie. Both came in many forms during the period.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                

PHOTO # 11: Civil War Federal Draught Harness (Wagon) Bridle with its original bit. Many tens of thousands of these were made by the Quartermaster and Ordnance Dept.’s for issue with wagon team harness. Very few survive today. Photo by author courtesy the Atlanta History Center.

                                                                                                                                                          

FOOTNOTES:

1. The Harness Maker’ Illustrated Manual, A Practical Guide Book for Manufacturers and Makers of Harness, Pads, Gig Saddles, etc., W.N. Fitzgerald, New York, 1875. Reprinted by North River Press, 1975. Pgs. 183-204. Saddlery and harness making had not changed much in the 100 years prior to the publication of this book so the information about leather, saddlery patterns and hardware found therein is invaluable and, much as it was during the Antebellum period. However, shortly after its publication great changes began to take place. In the 1870’s oak bark as a tanning agent began to be replaced by both Hemlock and gradually, South American Quebracho bark which became extensively used by the turn of the century. Then in 1904 a blight destroyed the Chestnut Oak trees in the United States ending forever the use of that kind of bark as a tanning agent. In the 1880’s leather bartering was changed so as to be sold by the square foot instead of by weight altering many of the processes in leather tanning and production that were designed to induce weight. Furthermore, in the decades that followed the war new machines were invented for sewing heavy leather, splitting and cutting leather, new metal alloys for buckles and, new rivets and machines for mass producing them evolved quickly so that by the early 20th century leather tanning, manufacturing and their products were noticeably different in appearance than that of Antebellum America.

Saddlery And harness Making
, Edited by Paul N. Hasluck, Messrs, Cassell and Co. Ltd, London, 1904. Reprinted by Allen & Co. Ltd, London, 1962

 

Johnson, Drew H., Eymann, Marcia, Silver & Gold, Cased Images of the California Gold Rush. University of Iowa Press for the Oakland Museum of California,1998.Pgs, 94, 146, 172

 

2. The Harness Maker’ Illustrated Manual, A Practical Guide Book for Manufacturers and Makers of Harness, Pads, Gig Saddles, etc., W.N. Fitzgerald, New York, 1875. Pgs. 183-204.

Malm, Dr. Gerhard A., DVM. Bits & Bridles Encyclopedia, Valley Falls, KS: Grasshopper Publishers, 1996. Pgs. 446 465.

Study of popular trends, evolution and manufacturing details of saddlery from a compilation of original and reprinted 19th and 20th century saddle catalogs hereafter referred to as “The Catalogs”, including: Harbison & Gathright, Louisville, Ky. 1875; JT Gathright & Look Louisville, KY. 1879; Decamp, Levoy Saddle Company, Cincinnati, Oh. 1876. Eugene, Or: (Collectors Library, 1997, www.rsdmilitaria.com); Miller, Morrison & Co. NYC, NT, 1880; Riser & Eritz, Co. Chicago, Ill. 1882; Peters & Calhoun Co. Newark, NJ & NYC 1883: C.J. Cooper & Co. Chicago, Ill. 1885; Perkins Campbell, Cin. Oh. 1888; Jacob Strauss Saddlery, St. Louis, Mo. 1887-1899; D. Mason & Sons, LTD. Walsall/Birmingham England, 1880’s; Graf, Morsbach & Co. Cin. Oh. 1890; S.R. & J.C. McConnel Saddlery, Burlington, IA. 1893, (Collectors Library, 1997); Moseman’s Illustrated Guide for Purchasers of Horse Furnishing Goods, Catalog of 1889. Charles Kaufman and Bracken Books, 1976; New York: Cresent Books, 1990. Sears Roebuck 1902, 1906 & 1908; Lerch Bros. Saddlery, Baltimore, MD. 1904; English Edwardian Goods, London, NYC, Washington, 1907; Victor Marden, Dalles, Or. 1917; Mehlbach Saddle Co. Successors to the Whitman Saddle Co. 1919, (Collectors Library, 1997); Perkins Campbell Saddlery, Cinn. Oh. 1925; Francis Bannerman Catalogue of Military Goods, 1927. (Northfield,Ill: DBI Books, 1963). Hereafter, referred to as “The Catalogs”.

3. The Harness Maker’ Illustrated Manual, A Practical Guide Book for Manufacturers and Makers of Harness, Pads, Gig Saddles, etc., W.N. Fitzgerald, New York, 1875. Pgs. 183-204.

4. IBID.

5. Knopp, Ken R., Made in the C.S.A. Saddle Makers of the Confederacy, Self published, 2003.

www.confederatesaddles.com

Files of the firms of dozens of firms that provided buckles and hardware to the Confederate Ordnance Department. Firms having contracts or business with the Ordnance Department for the manufacture of equipments during the war, M346, Confederate Papers Relating to Citizens or Business Firms, National Archives, Washington DC.

6. The Catalogs. W.N. Fitzgerald, New York, 1875. Pgs. 183-204.

The Harness Maker’ Illustrated Manual, A Practical Guide Book for Manufacturers and Makers of Harness, Pads, Gig Saddles, etc.,

Malm, Dr. Gerhard A., DVM. Bits & Bridles Encyclopedia, Valley Falls, KS: Grasshopper Publishers, 1996. Pgs. 446 465.

Johnson, Drew H., Eymann, Marcia, Silver & Gold, Cased Images of the California Gold Rush. University of Iowa Press for the Oakland Museum of California,1998.Pgs, 94, 146, 172

7. Man Made Mobile, Early Saddles of Western North American. Ahlborn, Richard E. ed. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1980. Pgs. 39 - 71.

]]> http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?feed=rss2&p=903 Period Men’s “Civilian” Clothing http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=807 http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=807#comments Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:43:24 +0000 Ken R. Knopp http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=807
[Show as slideshow]
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
overcoat1.jpg
white-summer-jacket-1850.jpg
white-summer-jacket-1850-60.jpg
wool-great-coat-english-1830-50.jpg
22a.jpg
black-satin-vest-1825-50.jpg
civilian-overcoat-atl-his-ctr.jpg
cooton-vest-1850s.jpg
duster-1870-1900.jpg
homespun-vest.jpg
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
linen-trouser-1830-1870.jpg
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
merseilles-vest-1830-50.jpg
locksmith.jpg
hdqrts-tele-operators.jpg
fed-war-dept-clerks-1865.jpg
confederate-civilians2.jpg
123
]]> http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?feed=rss2&p=807 19th Century Civilian & Commercial Saddles http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=790 http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=790#comments Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:01:29 +0000 Ken R. Knopp http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=790
[Show as slideshow]
mosby-saddle.jpg
buena-vista-tree.jpg
muly-tree.jpg
texas-jacob-strauss-co.jpg
applehorn-saddle-1880s-1890s.jpg
19th-century-civilian-saddle-bags.jpg
dodd-somerset-saddle.jpg
spanish-type-saddle.jpg
1850s-90s-kilgore.jpg
demi-applehorn.jpg
muly.jpg
texas-with-zinc-star.jpg
post-war-stirrups.jpg
post-war-catalog-stirrups.jpg
star-stirrups.jpg
spring-stirrups.jpg
colonial-stirrup.jpg
hand-forged-bar-iron-stirrups.jpg
somerset.jpg
muly-morgan.jpg
123456
]]> http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?feed=rss2&p=790 CS Cavalry/Artillery Uniforms & Equipment http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=780 http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=780#comments Sun, 28 Dec 2008 17:19:01 +0000 Ken R. Knopp http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=780
[Show as slideshow]
cs-nc-tar-cloth-haversack-11-x-15.jpg
web-site-001.jpg
154th-tenn-slouch-hat.jpg
282-51a.jpg
282-55a.jpg
282-57a.jpg
3rd-tenn-cav-jacket2.jpg
48-tenn-at-camp.gif
4th-tenn1.jpg
alexandra-photos-012.jpg
artillery-jacket-mike-kent-auctions.jpg
atlanta-arsenal-belt-plate.jpg
augusta-arsenal-cap-box.jpg
belt-rig-mike-eknt-auctions.jpg
brogans.jpg
canteen-rj-parker-3rd-tenn-inf.jpg
canteen.jpg
canvas-clothbelt1.jpg
canvas-clothbelt2.jpg
cap-box.jpg
1234...678
]]> http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?feed=rss2&p=780 CS Cavalry Weapons http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=775 http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=775#comments Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:38:44 +0000 Ken R. Knopp http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=775
[Show as slideshow]
lefaucheaux-pin-fire-revolver.jpg
lemat-with-holster.jpg
adams-from-london-armory.jpg
1842-aston-single-shot-pistol.jpg
cs-muzzle-loading-carbine.jpg
cs-palmetto-armory-pistol.jpg
cs-nashville-plow-works.jpg
cs-morse-carbine.jpg
kerr-revolver.jpg
lematt2.jpg
csa-marked-french-pinfire.jpg
british-tranter.jpg
leech-rigdon2.jpg
g-g-pistol6.jpg
g-g-pistol3.jpg
spiller-burr.jpg
davis-bozeman-cs-carbine.jpg
cs-tarply.jpg
cs-rising-breech-carbine.jpg
cs-rising-brech.jpg
1234
1234
]]> http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?feed=rss2&p=775 Confederate Drill Manuals http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=737 http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=737#comments Thu, 25 Dec 2008 05:27:20 +0000 Ken R. Knopp http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?p=737

 

CAVALRY/ARTILLERY MANUALS

USED BY MOUNTED FORCES OF

THE CONFEDERACY

 

 

                                                            Compiled by Ken R Knopp

The eleven manuals listed below are some of the known tactical manuals employed by the cavalry, artillery and mounted infantry of the Confederate Army during the War Between the States. Each is listed by its author’s name.

Comprised from the collections of various University Libraries, Historical Societies, Museum of the Confederacy, Federal Government holdings in the National Archives, etc. and listed in the Unofficial Publications of the Confederate States of America, CONFEDERATE IMPRINTS (Confederate Documents and Books Index), By Marjorie Crandall, Boston Antheneum, 1954.

 

ANDREWS MOUNTED ARTILLERY DRILL:

One of the first ever printed on subject of Light artillery and the first published including Horse Artillery. Teaching a gun crew drill for the piece and battery plus evolutions of several batteries when maneuvering. Reprint by Bohemian Brigde Bookshop, Knoxville, Tenn., 2000, 164 Pg plus plates.

 

ARENTSSCHILDT, FRIEDRICH VON: (1861)

Instructions on outpost duty for officers and non_commissioned officers of cavalry. By Lt. Col. A. Von Arentsschildt, First King’s German Legion. With an abridgment of them by Lt. Col., the Honorable F. Ponsonby, Twelfth Light Dragoons, Ft. McCullough, June 1861. Printed by J.W. Randolph, 121 Main St. Richmond, Va. 70 pages with illustrations.

 

BUCKHOLTZ, LOUIS VON: (1861)

Tactics for officers of infantry, cavalry, and artillery. Arranged and compiled by L. Von Buckholtz, author of Infantry, camp duty, field fortification and coast defense. Printed by J. W. Randolph, 121 Main St. Richmond, Va. 1861 121 pages.

 

COOKE, PHILIP ST. GEORGE:

Cavalry tactics or regulations for the instruction, formation and movements of the cavalry of the army and volunteers of the United States. By Philip St. Geo. Cooke, 2nd U.S. Cavalry, Vols. I & II. Printed by J.B. Liffincott & Co., Philadelphia, Pa.

Confederate copy printed by order of Lt. Gen E. Kirby Smith for use of the cavalry of the Trans_Mississippi Department, C.S. Army. Printed by the Texas Printing House, Houston Texas. 1863. 66 pages with plates. Also printed at the Job Office of the Caddo Gazette, Shreveport, Louisiana, 1865.

 

COOPER, SAMUEL: (1861)

Cooper’s cavalry tactics for use of volunteers. To which is added a manual for Colt’s revolver. By Adj. Gen. Samuel Cooper. U.S. Army. Printed by Charles Desilver, Philadelphia, 1855

Confederate copy printed by Power & Cadwallader, 74 Magazine St. Jackson, Miss. 1861. 48 pages with plates.

 

DAVIS, JAMES LUCIUS: (1861)

The Trooper’s Manual: or Tactics for Light Dragoons and Mounted Riflemen. Compiled, abridged and arranged by Col. J Lucius Davis, graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, formerly an officer of the U.S. Army and for many years commander and instructor of volunteer cavalry. Published by A. Morris, Richmond Va. 1861 (Third Edition 1862). 284 pages.

 

GILHAM, WILLIAM: (1861)

Cavalry Tactics. Taken from Gilham’s Manual of Instruction for Volunteers and Militia and adopted as the standard authority for the State of Texas, embracing the school of the trooper, the school of the troop and the organization of cavalry. Galveston, Texas. Printed at the “News” Office by D. Richardson. 1861. 85 pages.

 

NOLAN, LEWIS EDWARD: (1864)

Cavalry, its history and tactics. By Captain L.E. Nolan, 15th Hussars. First American edition from the second London edition. Evans and Cogswell, Columbia. S.C. 1864. 202 pages.

 

PATTEN, GEORGE WASHINGTON: (1862)

Cavalry Drill and sabre exercise; compiled agreeably to the latest regulations of the War Department, from the standard military authority. By George W. Patten. Published by J.W. Fortune, No. 102 Centre St., New York, 1861.

Confederate copy by George W. Patten. Printed by West & Johnson, 145 Main St. Richmond. Va. 1862. 165 pages.

 

WHEELER, JOSEPH: (1863)

A revised system of Cavalry tactics, for the use of the cavalry and mounted infantry, C.S.A. By Major General Joseph Wheeler, Chief of Cavalry, Army of Tennessee, C.S.A. Printed by S.H. Goetzel & Co., Mobile, 1863

 

and…………….

 

MAURY, CAPT. D.H.: SKIRMISH DRILL FOR MOUNTED TROOPS

The entry in T. Michael Parrish and Robert M. Willingham, Jr.’s Confederate Imprints: A Bibliography of Southern Publications from Secession to Surrender (Austin, Texas: Jenkins Publishing Co. and Ketonah, New York: Gary A. Foster, 1980) shows five seperate known Confederate editions of Maury’s Skirmish Drill for Mounted Troops. They are:

1. Maury’s Skirmish Drill, Republished for use of Baylor’s Mounted Partisan Rangers (San Antonio: Herald Power Press Print, 1862). Original copy in private collection.

2. Skirmish Drill for Mounted Troops (Richmond: Ritchie & Dunnavant, 1861). Original copies at: Yale University, Newberry Library in Chicago, Boston Athenaeum, United States Military Academy, Duke University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Western Reserve Historical Society, Library of Virginia.

3. Skirmish Drill for Mounted Troops by Capt. D.H. Maury, C.S.A. (Richmond: J.W. Randolph, 1861). This edition was bound with Samuel Cooper’s Cavalry Tactics For Use of the Volunteers: To Which is Added, A Manual for Colt’s Revolver (New Orleans: H.P. Lanthrop, 1861). Original copy at: Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.

4. Skirmish Drill for Mounted Troops. Printed by Order of the War Department (Charleston: S.G. Courtnay, Publisher, 1861). Original copies at: University of South Carolina in Columbia, Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.

5. Skirmish Drill for Mounted Troops. Printed by Order of the War Department (Mobile: Farrow & Dennett, Printers, 1863). This edition includes manual of arms for Sharp’s carbine and Colt’s navy revolver by Capt. R.W. Johnson, 2nd Reg’t. Cavalry.

Original copy at: Museum of the Confederacy.

 

Compiled by Ken Knopp

]]> http://confederatesaddles.com/cswp/?feed=rss2&p=737