Horse breeds of the Civil War

[historian101]

I have been trying to learn as much as I can in a short time about the war and how people lived so please excuse any ignorance in my questions......

Does anyone know what breeds of horses were around during the CW? I know that there were TN Walkers, Thourobreds and possibly Irish Hunters. I have been listening to "Cold Mountain" (I know it is fiction - non fiction is a little hard to take sometimes) and one of the men in the book is riding a Hanovarian. This is strange because this is a German Sport horse. Were horses being imported from Europe during the CW due to the masses of them that were dying in battle?

I have also noticed in pictures that most of the horses looked TN walkers (they tend to be short from the hip to the base of the tail and have very long faces). They were very popular plantation horses due to their smooth gate and very good temperment.

But if anyone has any other information on specific horse breed that would be great!

Thanks

[LindaTrent]

Re: Horse breeds of the Civil War

Hi Susan,

It looks like the big thread on breeds died in one of the crashes. :-( Are you looking to find out what breed to buy for reenacting or just what breeds were typical to the period?

The short answer is that there were few "breeds" as we know them; most organizations were developed later in the 19th and 20th centuries, though the thorough-breds did have a stud book. Back then horses were more typically typed (i.e. saddle horse, buggy horse, plow horse, there were also trotters, pacers, rackers, draught or omnibus horses, general purpose horses, etc.)

The Tennessee Walking horse association for example didn't form until 1935, but they acknowledge that the first horse recognized as performing the running walk was a horse by the name of Bald Stockings that was foaled in Kentucky in 1837. So you probably wouldn't call it a Tennessee Walker in the period.

The Morgan Horse is another where the association didn't form until 1909, but there was a history of the horse that recorded bloodlines that was written in the 1850s. Morgan is a period correct name for the grand trotter who had

"a short, light, rapid step and great muscles that made him a fast traveller, especially as an 'all-day' horse. He had prominent, clear, eager eyes, set wide apart; short pointed, sensitive ears; and a light head that he carried high." Sloan's Complete Farrier and Cattle Doctor, 1869

"He was compact and hardy and could live on minimal food. He weighed around 950-1000 pounds and stood fourteen and a half to fifteen hands high. He was also well-adapted to most farm labor."Sanford Howard, "Remarks on the Horse" U.S.D.A. Report, 1862

I have more for another time, but I'll get to bed and let someone else answer. :-)

Linda.

[historian101]

Re: Horse breeds of the Civil War

I couldnt remember when the Morgan was introduced. But I know from the reading that I have done, they did refer to the horses by use not breed. I was just curious. Looking at old photo's sometimes you just cant tell what they are. I know that I have never seen a paint or pinto in any pictures. Although they could be out there and I have never seen them.

Thanks for the input!

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: Horse breeds of the Civil War

A lot of "modern" breeds got their start prior to the Civil War it's just that registries were not formed until after. And most horses back then were (just as they are today) "grade" horses.

Pintos and Paints (even though associations exist for them today) persay are not a "breed" but a color and can be found in many breeds of horse but they were not favored by the military and not popular with horses owners (many possess blue eyes considered a defect in those days).

There certainly was a lot of expensive horse importing going on prior to the war. The "Hanovarian" you cited might have been nothing more than refering to where the horse had been imported from (the German State of Hanover) or it could have been a reference to the development of the warmblood by crossing it with throughbreds and draft horses to give it a good size and temperatment.

The modern quarter horse had already started to develop by the CW.

Various southern foxtroters had also started to develop by this point.

What you want to do is determine what the horse is going to be used for and the buy one that fits the description in the quartermasters regs. They didn't really care about breeds.

You should also remember that there were at least as many mules in America as horses in the 1860s so depending on what you want to do a mule might be a good alternative. Southern troopers had to bring their own animals and if a mule was all he had that might be what he brought with him.

[bqbowden]

Re: Horse breeds of the Civil War

I agree, concerning the posts I have read so far. I have a friend who has documented the different breeds and while paints were not generally used, by the end of the war, any horse that could be procurred was used.

It really depends on what you are wanting to use the horse for. As for a breed for general use, I would recommend a quarter horse or a horse with a quarter horse look (a "grey" or non-papered mixed breed). As for color, any horse with a single coloring should work.

[LindaTrent]

Re: Horse breeds of the Civil War

Pintos and Paints (even though associations exist for them today) persay are not a "breed" but a color and can be found in many breeds of horse but they were not favored by the military and not popular with horses owners (many possess blue eyes considered a defect in those days).

Another reason that paints were disliked by the average American is because they tended to have white socks/stockings and that was seen as unsound. It was believed that the more white a horse had (particularly on his/her feet) the more apt it was to develop problems related to the feet. Ironically, in the 20th and 21st century I've owned several horses but only one ever developed foot problems, and that was a pony with four white stockings and a big blaze down the face. Every other horse we had, including our grey had solid dark legs.

The paint was often referred to as an Indian pony (though Indian ponies came in solid colors as well), and was seen as being a ladies and/or children's horse. According to one secondary source the Indian ponies

"came from the plains of Texas or New Mexico to Kentucky and Tennessee in the last 1700s In the early part of the 19th century, many Native Americans sold their ponies to flatboatmen who brought them up the Mississippi and Ohio rivers and subsequently sold them to farmers..." History of Agriculture in Ohio to 1880 by Robert Leslie Jones.

One farmer who wrote in the US Patent Office from Beaver County, PA (on the Ohio River) wrote in 1854: "All grades are kept for use, from the full-blooded English horse, to the ponies of the Western plains."

It would seem logical that the plains Indians would not sell their swift war ponies, but rather their mounts for women and old people. This would explain Henry Herbert's quote from 1859

Nothing is to be gained by crossing [Indian ponies] with our horses, and the only utility which they can ever subserve is as the riding animals of children or very young ladies.

For what it's worth, Herbert goes on to say that the Indian pony seldom exceeds

thirteen, never fourteen hands, and is a veritable pony -- short barreled, round ribbed, strong-limbed, short and thick neck, with legs, fetlocks and feet literally of iron. His legs are covered with thick hair, his mane is almost as voluminous as that of a lion, often falling on both sides of his neck, while the forelock covers his eyes... They are of all colors -- browns, bays, blacks, sorrels, duns, and by no means unfrequently, piebalds."

Bob wrote: The modern quarter horse had already started to develop by the CW.

While this is true, I'd recommend going to the foundation quarter horse and not the modern halter Quarter horse with Impressive bloodlines. Impressive bloodlines not only are a potential danger for the horse (passing down HYPP), but also has a very distinctive face that can be identified from a distance as "Impressive" by those who know the breed.

Just a few other little things that I thought of. :)

Linda.

[historian101]

Re: Horse breeds of the Civil War

Thanks fo rthe info. I know to much about "halter breed" quarter horses. I had one and he was lame more that he was sound. Ironically, he had white socks on his very fragile front feet and he had white feet. He would have lasted about 15 second on the field. (Plus he was a palamino).

I watched a DVD on horses of the civil war, and they talked about how a mule would not get near a battle field. So they were only used for transporting food and supplies.

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: Horse breeds of the Civil War

While this is true, I'd recommend going to the foundation quarter horse and not the modern halter Quarter horse with Impressive bloodlines. Impressive bloodlines not only are a potential danger for the horse (passing down HYPP), but also has a very distinctive face that can be identified from a distance as "Impressive" by those who know the breed.

Linda.

I'll second that big time. If you want a sound health working horse stay as far away from the Impressive bloodlines as possible.

Personally though I'd go with a grade quarter horse mix. I once owned a walker/quarter hourse mix who was sound till the day he died (about 40), willing, brave, cold blooded and at a running walk the most comfortable horse I ever owned.

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: Horse breeds of the Civil War

I watched a DVD on horses of the civil war, and they talked about how a mule would not get near a battle field. So they were only used for transporting food and supplies.

Mules are too smart for that but they were the prefered draft animal in america at the time so if you're doing a family impression with a wagon you'd be pretty close with a mule.

Personally, I've owned horses about a quarter century, currently have almost 40 and have never noticed white footed horses having anymore leg/hoof problems than dark legged horses.

It is a matter of matching the right horse to the job and proper maintainence.

Show horses also live a hard life. The trailers aren't easy to travel in a lot of pounding on the legs. Too much time in stalls and hard show rings, not enough time just roaming the fields. And show season is like being a professional athelete without the training staff. Work hard all weekend and no one to ice and soak you all week long.

[LindaTrent]

Re: Horse breeds of the Civil War

Mules are too smart for that but they were the prefered draft animal in america at the time so if you're doing a family impression with a wagon you'd be pretty close with a mule.

I'd say what was most common all really goes back to who, what, when, where and why? If you're portraying someone in an area where mules were typical, then yes, mules would be a good choice, but while mules did tend to live nearly twice as long as horses and were cheaper to keep, and just easier all the way around, they just didn't seem to hold much regard in Ohio as a farm animal.

My research has tended to show a north / south difference of opinion, with the south favoring mules and the north typically other drought animals (horses and oxen depending upon locale).

For example: In the 1850 census, Ohio had a total of only 3,423 mules on farms. Ohio has 88 counties and in the same census thirty of the counties had less than 10 mules and 9 of the counties had none. However, this doesn't mean that they were being used for farm work -- mule breeding was a major industry in Ohio.

Robert Leslie Jones, in his book, History of Agriculture in Ohio to 1880, makes mention of how the mule industry flurished in the state prior to the 1850s, due to the plantation market. The trade slowed down during the '50s and Ohio mules were being sold more to canalmen, coal miners, and street-car companies. The war brought an end to whatever was left of the plantation market, but opened up a new market, that being the US government contractors.

Thirty of Ohio's 88 counties had fewer than 10 and nine of Ohio's counties had none.

It all really goes back to who, what, when, where and why? And the importance of researching before each event to see what's most typical for a particular time and place.

Just my two cents worth,

Linda.