I am writing a book on the eastern column of the 1865 Powder River Indian Expedition. I know how many cavalry troops there were, 1108 total. However, I am unable to find any info as to how many horses they had with them or some ratio of spares horses to troops they may have had with them. Further, I know that they had great difficulty obtaining horses for this expedition as it was right after the end of the Civil War. I have looked through the Official Records and other reports but found nothing on this subject.
Does anyone have any information that would help me with estimates of the horses they likely would have had?
Thanks,
Bill Haas
billscobra@gmail.com
Number of spare horses or remounts a cavalry unit would have
-
Pat Holscher
- Society Member
- Posts: 7553
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
- Last Name: Holscher
This isn't really an answer to your question, but one thing I'd note is that it was typically the case that for cavalrymen on a campaign in this period, I believe that there were no spare horses. If their horse "broke" down, they ended up walking with the train, a not uncommon experience. It tended to be a real concern of individual cavalrymen. This expedition suffered something like 50% horse and mule attrition and a lot of troopers ended up walking towards the end.
That campaign resulted in the establishment of a fort, so it may perhaps be a bit different.
That campaign resulted in the establishment of a fort, so it may perhaps be a bit different.
No documentation to add, but I would suspect that Pat is on the money - a relative of mine was in the 12th Mo. Cav. (which was part of this expedition). I do know that they were either using or issued Spencer carbines and 6-tube Blakeslee loaders - a 're-fit' happened in late spring/early summer 1865 as they passed through Jefferson Barracks on the way west, which is where any last horse issue occurred. They had been operating near Nashville and points immediately south before being assigned to that expedition. This regiment had been formed in 1863, so they had another year on their commitment and were handy to grab and send out.
Not a popular decision with some of them, who likely deemed their service for the duration of the war or three years, whichever came first. This relation and some number of companions differed on this government contractual interpretation and took a right-face when passing from Ft. Leavenworth to Omaha, near St. Joseph Mo. Although warrants were sworn out and delivered to district provosts, they appear to have been round-filed, as no known record of prosecutions have been found.
Not a popular decision with some of them, who likely deemed their service for the duration of the war or three years, whichever came first. This relation and some number of companions differed on this government contractual interpretation and took a right-face when passing from Ft. Leavenworth to Omaha, near St. Joseph Mo. Although warrants were sworn out and delivered to district provosts, they appear to have been round-filed, as no known record of prosecutions have been found.
-
Bill32
Pat and Todd: Thanks for the responses. Pat's thoughts are what I have been suspecting, no extra horses, except maybe a few senior officers had one. I do know that the eastern column had 3 batteries of cannon (so this would above been about 18 cannon at 4 to 6 horses each maybe). I guess that I will stick with my original guess of about 1200 horses total.
I have done quite a bit of searching through the National Archives Official Records trying to find some document which at least showed what the original plan's TO&E would have been as well as quantities of supplies, feed and food. Found basically nothing.
Todd: Do you recall where you found the info about them being refitted in Jackson Barracks? All I found was that Col. Cole's 2nd Missouri Light Artillery was re-fit as they went through St. Louis, but no specifics.
Thanks,
Bill Haas
billscobra@gmail.com
I have done quite a bit of searching through the National Archives Official Records trying to find some document which at least showed what the original plan's TO&E would have been as well as quantities of supplies, feed and food. Found basically nothing.
Todd: Do you recall where you found the info about them being refitted in Jackson Barracks? All I found was that Col. Cole's 2nd Missouri Light Artillery was re-fit as they went through St. Louis, but no specifics.
Thanks,
Bill Haas
billscobra@gmail.com
-
Pat Holscher
- Society Member
- Posts: 7553
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
- Last Name: Holscher
There are several old threads here and there that may be useful to you. While they are old, therefore from about three or so forum programs ago, they're worth looking at. The search feature might have a bit of a hard time finding them, however.
One of them deals with broken down horses. If you find the correct one, it notes that troopers worried about a mount becoming useless during a campaign, as that meant that they ended up in the rear with the baggage, not necessarily and enviable role. That thread also notes that some officers became so frustrated with broken down mounts on long campaigns they actually wrote that only infantry should be fielded. While that clearly exaggerated their frustration, on a long campaign there sometimes was a point at which infantry became as mobile as cavalry. On the other hand, you can find examples of commanders mounting infantry on quartermaster mules or captured Indian ponies in an effort to increase their mobility. Crook, I believe, attempted that in 1876.
On horse numbers in general, it's interesting to note that the ranching standard of the time was seven horses to the man, something that stands in stark contrast to the one horse per soldier practice of the Army. This is explainable, however, as the Army could not have been burdened with driving a remuda on campaign, or even really maintaining one while in garrison. Nonetheless, the figure is interesting in that it was assumed that seven horses to one man was necessary to have fresh horses while heavily using them, in ranching, and it is still the norm that at least three horses to the man be available in the modern ranching context.
On officer's mounts, they were required to have their own horse, but in the 19th Century the norm was for junior officers to check out a regimental horse for campaign. As horses were expensive, not too many junior officers wanted to risk loosing one in action. Even relatively senior officers could do that. For example, I think Miles Keogh's horses in 1876 was a regimental horse, and probably quite a few officer's horses were. Likewise, they were required to own their own tack but often checked out unit tack for actually field service.
An example of how privately owned horses worked is provided by Tomkin's in his book Chasing Villa, although that concerns the 1915 campaign into Mexico. Tomkin had two horses of his own, one of which carried his baggage and the other which carried him. He switched back and forth as required.
Of course, in the first Powder River Campaign we're speaking of a campaign that came at the end of the Civil War era, so there is a lot about it that's unique in comparison to later campaigns. One you've mentioned, which is that Connor deployed artillery. Indeed, there are photos of the Tongue River battleground, where artillery was used, on this website (I took them), if you do a search for them. Another thing would be that many of the troops involved, and really Connor himself, weren't professional soldiers so their habits were a bit different than what we'd see in the remainder of the Frontier period. The period from 1865 to 1868 or stands out in a lot of ways from the eras before or after it. Connor was highly active in the Powder River Basin during the late Civil War, immediate post Civil War, and quite a bit of what he did or attempted stand out accordingly. Not that this impacts your question, but when looking at this era we do need to keep that in mind.
Regarding first hand accounts, some of which do deal with horses, the book The Long War for the Northern Plains includes some first hand accounts of experiences there. I put a few of them up as quotes awhile back.
One of them deals with broken down horses. If you find the correct one, it notes that troopers worried about a mount becoming useless during a campaign, as that meant that they ended up in the rear with the baggage, not necessarily and enviable role. That thread also notes that some officers became so frustrated with broken down mounts on long campaigns they actually wrote that only infantry should be fielded. While that clearly exaggerated their frustration, on a long campaign there sometimes was a point at which infantry became as mobile as cavalry. On the other hand, you can find examples of commanders mounting infantry on quartermaster mules or captured Indian ponies in an effort to increase their mobility. Crook, I believe, attempted that in 1876.
On horse numbers in general, it's interesting to note that the ranching standard of the time was seven horses to the man, something that stands in stark contrast to the one horse per soldier practice of the Army. This is explainable, however, as the Army could not have been burdened with driving a remuda on campaign, or even really maintaining one while in garrison. Nonetheless, the figure is interesting in that it was assumed that seven horses to one man was necessary to have fresh horses while heavily using them, in ranching, and it is still the norm that at least three horses to the man be available in the modern ranching context.
On officer's mounts, they were required to have their own horse, but in the 19th Century the norm was for junior officers to check out a regimental horse for campaign. As horses were expensive, not too many junior officers wanted to risk loosing one in action. Even relatively senior officers could do that. For example, I think Miles Keogh's horses in 1876 was a regimental horse, and probably quite a few officer's horses were. Likewise, they were required to own their own tack but often checked out unit tack for actually field service.
An example of how privately owned horses worked is provided by Tomkin's in his book Chasing Villa, although that concerns the 1915 campaign into Mexico. Tomkin had two horses of his own, one of which carried his baggage and the other which carried him. He switched back and forth as required.
Of course, in the first Powder River Campaign we're speaking of a campaign that came at the end of the Civil War era, so there is a lot about it that's unique in comparison to later campaigns. One you've mentioned, which is that Connor deployed artillery. Indeed, there are photos of the Tongue River battleground, where artillery was used, on this website (I took them), if you do a search for them. Another thing would be that many of the troops involved, and really Connor himself, weren't professional soldiers so their habits were a bit different than what we'd see in the remainder of the Frontier period. The period from 1865 to 1868 or stands out in a lot of ways from the eras before or after it. Connor was highly active in the Powder River Basin during the late Civil War, immediate post Civil War, and quite a bit of what he did or attempted stand out accordingly. Not that this impacts your question, but when looking at this era we do need to keep that in mind.
Regarding first hand accounts, some of which do deal with horses, the book The Long War for the Northern Plains includes some first hand accounts of experiences there. I put a few of them up as quotes awhile back.
-
Pat Holscher
- Society Member
- Posts: 7553
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
- Last Name: Holscher
Pat Holscher wrote:Account of 1865 action in Wyoming by member of the 11th Cavalry in Eyewitness to the Indian Wars 1865-1890, page 5.After a shart engagement, they succeeded in stampeding his horses. This necessitated the abandonment of the pursuit. Moonlight burned his saddles and took up the weary march back to Fort Laramie on foot.
Both of these refer to 1865 Wyoming actions.Pat Holscher wrote:pg 36, Eyewitness to the Indian Wars, 1865-1890.Captain North also returned from Powder River and reports that he found from five hundred to six hundred dead cavalry horses, undoubtedly belonging to Cole's command; most of them were found shot at the picket line. From that it appears that Cole had been hard-pressed by the Indians and had been compelled to dismount his men and shoot his horses, the Indians giving them no chance to forage. A large number of saddles and other property had been burned.
-
Bill32
What actually happened to all those horses, and mules on Col. Cole's eastern column of the 1865 Powder River Expedition was the following, summarized:
When this column left Omaha on July 1st they were short of about everything, including only about 10 days of feed grain for the livestock. They also only had 48 days of food rations that was supposed to get them about 800+ miles before resupply. It was known at the time that the summer of 1865 was a dry one up into the Dakota and Wyoming and grazing grass was very sparse. Numerous officer and official reports said by the time they reached the western edge of Wyoming the livestock was giving out for lack of grass and good water. Horses were trying to live on poor grass and cottonwood bark. On the night of September 8th, the 70th day on the trail, a blizzard arrived and about 150 animals died from exposure that night. The next day about 200 more died or were shot because they were dying. Cole ordered the burning of 100 wagons because there were not enough mules left to pull them. This became called the Dead Horse Camp. By the time the eastern column found Ft. Connor on September 19th they were eating the dying animals as they fell. They had run out of food rations almost a week before and had been on 1/4 rations prior to that for about a week. Almost of the 3/4 of the command were on foot when they reached Ft. Connor and found food.
When this column left Omaha on July 1st they were short of about everything, including only about 10 days of feed grain for the livestock. They also only had 48 days of food rations that was supposed to get them about 800+ miles before resupply. It was known at the time that the summer of 1865 was a dry one up into the Dakota and Wyoming and grazing grass was very sparse. Numerous officer and official reports said by the time they reached the western edge of Wyoming the livestock was giving out for lack of grass and good water. Horses were trying to live on poor grass and cottonwood bark. On the night of September 8th, the 70th day on the trail, a blizzard arrived and about 150 animals died from exposure that night. The next day about 200 more died or were shot because they were dying. Cole ordered the burning of 100 wagons because there were not enough mules left to pull them. This became called the Dead Horse Camp. By the time the eastern column found Ft. Connor on September 19th they were eating the dying animals as they fell. They had run out of food rations almost a week before and had been on 1/4 rations prior to that for about a week. Almost of the 3/4 of the command were on foot when they reached Ft. Connor and found food.
Both of these refer to 1865 Wyoming actions.[/quote]Pat Holscher wrote:pg 36, Eyewitness to the Indian Wars, 1865-1890.Captain North also returned from Powder River and reports that he found from five hundred to six hundred dead cavalry horses, undoubtedly belonging to Cole's command; most of them were found shot at the picket line. From that it appears that Cole had been hard-pressed by the Indians and had been compelled to dismount his men and shoot his horses, the Indians giving them no chance to forage. A large number of saddles and other property had been burned.
-
Pat Holscher
- Society Member
- Posts: 7553
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
- Last Name: Holscher
Ft. Connor:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11399
Ft. Connor remains very out of the way even today. I've been there and it doesn't get much traffic.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11399
Ft. Connor remains very out of the way even today. I've been there and it doesn't get much traffic.
I don't know if you've read Freemont's report to congress on his expedition to western Wyoming in 1842, but it might be of some use to you. I don't recall him addressing your particular question but his report is rich with details of daily life on the trail in that part of the country, including the maintenance of their animals. It is well written and a quick and engrossing read.
Sandy
Sandy