Union/Confederate horse brands

[crazeesharon]

Hi, I'm new here. I'm a writer, and I'm looking for reference material regarding the kinds and locations of brands used by the Union and Confederate armies during the Civil War for both cavalry and artillery horses. Any guidance would be appreciated.

[Kentucky Horseman]

US was the offical brand for the US government in that era and might still be used for other horse like those of the border partol and other forces that still use horses. There was also a 4 part brand of a cross with a number on each part of it exspect for one which had a latter. this showed the regiment, troop, and the number of the platoon and the trooper to whom the horse was issued to, I think that brand was there but I am not sure if I am right or wrong there.

[Pat Holscher]

US was the offical brand for the US government in that era and might still be used for other horse like those of the border partol and other forces that still use horses. There was also a 4 part brand of a cross with a number on each part of it exspect for one which had a latter. this showed the regiment, troop, and the number of the platoon and the trooper to whom the horse was issued to, I think that brand was there but I am not sure if I am right or wrong there.

I've bumped a thread up on the US brand.

[Johnsod42]

My name is David and I'm new to your forum. I'm doing research on my third great grandfather who came to America in 1853 from Prussia and reportedly brought two stallions with him on the trip over. He settled in a community called Dessau,Texas which sits outside Austin, Texas. In 1861 grandpa joined the Confederacy and was a cavalry soldier with a light artillery unit. I read in one report, passed down through family, that he may have raised horses for the Confederacy. On March 30,1868 grandpa registered a brand in Travis County that was a capital G with the letter S in it's center. The downward line on the G was emphasized which leads to my primary question. Does anyone know of a Confederate brand that would have been the letter C with an S in it's center. I can easily see where grandpa would have transformed the C to a G after the war.

[Pat Holscher]

Regulations for the Army of the Confederate States, 1864

917. Public horses, mules, oxen tools and implements shall be branded conspicuously C.S. before being used in service, and all other public property that may be useful to mark; and all public property having the brand of the C.S. when sold or condemned shall be branded with the letter C.

I'm not an expert on Confederate markings by any means, but I think this would have been a simple "C.S.", just like the U.S. brand was "U.S."

Just fwiw, your third great grandfather wouldn't have been a cavalryman with a light artillery unit as there were no cavalrymen in artillery units. The artillery itself was a mounted service so he may well have served in the saddle, at least while a unit was moving and perhaps while it was being deployed in combat, however.

[Johnsod42]

Thanks for the reply. I do know that he was in a Texas Light Artillery unit and I do have a picture of him in his uniform with hat, saber and holster/pistol.

[Pat Holscher]

Thanks for the reply. I do know that he was in a Texas Light Artillery unit and I do have a picture of him in his uniform with hat, saber and holster/pistol.

All field artillery of that era was mounted. I'm not familiar with "light artillery" in this the context of the Confederate forces, but the Civil War was only about 20 years after the Mexican War during which artillery had been the really supreme element of the US forces and which featured "flying batteries". During the Civil War rapid deployment of artillery remained paramount.

Judging the exact role of Confederate soldiers by their arms is a little difficult as it was irregular to a large degree. Prior to the war we'd expect American artillerymen to be carrying short swords or sabers, musketoons or revolvers, if I recall correctly, but during the war things of course entered a state of flux, particularity the south. So being equipped in that fashion isn't really surprising for an artillerymen in that time, place and army.

If you'd care to post it, we'd love to see the photograph. If you don't want to simply post it publicly, there may be a way to "watermark" a digital image.

[Pat Holscher]

As a slight addition, on the photographs, one thing I should have mentioned is that studio portraits are particularly problematic from the Civil War as to arms.

For some reason, studio photographers loved to hand their soldier subjects revolvers and sabers, even if they weren't cavalrymen. So you'll see odd examples of men photographed with their rifles, but also with revolvers and sabers, or sitting posing with sabers and revolvers. Quite often, the sabers and revolvers belonged to the studio.

Not always, of course. Sometimes they were very much the weapons of the person being portrayed.

Field photographs are different of course. If a soldier is in the field posing under arms, they were probably his.

Although not fully necessarily. I even suspect that in some more modern photographs. I'll see, for example, a fair number of photographs from the Vietnam War in which a soldier is posing in garrison with something like a Thompson submachinegun and I suspect that over half the time, he's just posing with something that's neat. I'll confess myself to be in a photo with a M203 grenade launcher in the mid 1980s which was never my issue weapon, so the temptation to do that spans the generations I guess.

Anyhow, I'm not saying that's the case with your photo, which of course I haven't seen. I'm just noting that this is frequently the case.

[Johnsod42]

Grandpa Confederate picture.jpg (57.22 KiB) Viewed 3757 times

Grandpa served in (Wilkes) 6th Texas Field Battery C,S,A. This is displayed in a "Widows Application for Confederate Pension" filed by grandmother on July 27, 1928 and approved.

The attached picture of grandpa shows him with his saber in his left hand and his pistol set up for a cross draw by his left hand. Our family has many left handed people to-include both of my children. My dad and I are both left handed but we shoot left handed. In the genes I guess.

[Pat Holscher]

Thanks.

The saber or sword is remarkably short and straight bladed. I'm not an expert on edged weapons by any means, but it doesn't appear to be the curved saber of the era, but much more in the nature of a short sword.

FWIW, photography of the era was mirror image, as opposed to the refracted photography of today, so, unless this image has been mechanically reversed, it actually shows his saber his right hand, not his left, and the military type holster on his left hip for cross draw by his right hand. The oddity is that we'd expect the holster to be on the right hip, which is the norm.

This assumes that the image hasn't been mechanically reversed, which people will do in order to correct them for the modern eye.

These weapons, and certainly the revolver, do appear to be his standard issue (or at least daily carry) weapons.

Photography of that era is often confusing, I'd note, to modern eyes for the reason noted. We just don't automatically reverse the position of everything as we don't expect things to be a mirror image. Viewers of the day must have been completely acclimated to that.

[Pat Holscher]

As a slight aside, I may merge this topic with the earlier one that I just bumped up, and an earlier one that I recall on the CS regulations if I can find it. These are interesting topics and perhaps having the information merged will be of some use.

I wanted to note that as I don't want to create confusion if I do that.

[Joseph Sullivan]

Might have been a short sword, as some artillery non-commissioned officers on both sides of the WBS were armed with just such. It is generally believed that this was only the case of dismounted "foot" artillery troops, but in wartime, who knows? Artillery short swords turn up with odd identifications. Maybe 30 years ago, I found the US version of one on a vendor's table at the huge Canton. TX 1st Monday flea market. the guy wanted a stupidly high price, because he was absolutely sure it was a "vIking" sword.

[Pat Holscher]

Might have been a short sword, as some artillery non-commissioned officers on both sides of the WBS were armed with just such. It is generally believed that this was only the case of dismounted "foot" artillery troops, but in wartime, who knows? Artillery short swords turn up with odd identifications. Maybe 30 years ago, I found the US version of one on a vendor's table at the huge Canton. TX 1st Monday flea market. the guy wanted a stupidly high price, because he was absolutely sure it was a "vIking" sword.

Artillery short swords may be the most improperly identified swords of them all.

At one time a local veterans museum (now very much improved) was staffed by volunteers here. One of the things they had on display was a "conquistador" sword that had been recovered near Ft. Laramie.

Yup, same thing you were seeing as a Viking sword.

[Philip S]

Confederate brand on display at the National Civil War Museum, Harrisburg, PA:

Confederate branding iron.jpg (140.62 KiB) Viewed 3729 times

[Pat Holscher]

I"m surprised by the flourish on the tips of the "S" on that brand!