Having toyed with the idea of addressing veterinary care and the adoption of veterinary surgeons in the Union cavalry for some time, a recent discussion presented by friends Steve and Brandon of the Research Arsenal and their 11th OVC channel prompted me to finally give the topic a try. You may find their discussions here and here. A disclaimer up front – I do not claim that what follows is comprehensive by any measure. I am still trying to understand the topic myself. Also, I will not discuss actual horse ailments in any detail, as Steve and Brandon do a great job in the second video linked above. According to David Gerleman, in his indispensable thesis, Unchronicled Heroes: A Study of Union Cavalry Horses in the Eastern Theater. Care, Treatment, and Use, 1861-65, the War Department did not give any serious thought to adopting veterinary surgeons into the cavalry until 1853. With little progress having been made, George McClellan broached the topic again in 1856 and 1857 after he returned from observing the armies in the Crimea. Following the outbreak of the war, President Lincoln mandated that each of the Regular Army cavalry regiments include a veterinary sergeant in their ranks, with a monthly wage of $17. On March 24, 1863, the War Department issued General Order 73, authorizing a veterinary surgeon for each cavalry regiment in the service. The men would hold the rank of sergeant-major and receive $75 per month, the pay of a 1st Lieutenant. That spring, 40 civilian veterinarians formed the American Veterinary Medical Association. Coincidently, the date was June 9, the day of, arguably, the largest cavalry battle of the war, However, beyond the promulgation of formal orders, the degree to which cavalry officers recognized the need for and appointed men within their units to care for their horses seems, to me, to have been very haphazard.] As explained by Philip Teigen and Leon Saunders, the 1860 Census listed just 392 veterinary surgeons in the United States. Moreover, the army did not initially adopt any qualifications for the position. The head of the civilian association believed the “U.S. Army to be the only one in the civilized world without educated Veterinarians [emphasis in original].” Not until 1865 did the army specify duties and qualifications, to include, “Care and cure of sick and disabled animals, Considerable education involving knowledge of anatomy and physiology of horses, Knowledge of chemistry sufficient to understand the character and use of chemicals and medicines used to treat horses and A practical knowledge and experience in diseases to which horses are subject.” The order also “assigned responsibilities for horse medicines and supplies used with accountability to the regimental quartermaster for the expenditure incurred for these items.” By one count, however, there were but six qualified veterinary surgeons in the army in 1863. The army formed the Cavalry Bureau in late-July 1863, with the idea of standardizing many of the policies and procedures that governed the acquisition of horses and other equipment and remounting and returning men to their regiments more quickly and efficiently. Massive depots sprouted up in Washington, D.C., Wilmington, Delaware, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, St. Louis, Missouri, Nashville, Tennessee and Greenville, Louisiana. But lacking a clear understanding of equine ailments, these depots soon became breeding grounds for diseases that decimated the animals, even before they reached the field or shortly thereafter. With the above as a short introduction to some of the problems, as well as some of the solutions the army sought to put into practice, I will present over the next several posts (with a possible interruption next month, some contemporary documents, arranged in chronological order, which I hope shed further light upon the problems and the solutions. As the army rapidly expanded in the first years of the conflict, so did all of the supporting elements of the army. With an instant need for tens of thousands of horses, the army quickly signed dozens, if not hundreds, of contracts with civilian contractors. Invariably, some of the contractors, as well as some of the farmers and ranchers who provided the horses, sought to exploit the emergency for immediate personal profit. As a hedge against fraud, the army hired inspectors to ensure that the animals were healthy and met the standards of the contracts. By personally examining the animals before accepting them, they sought to weed out sick, as well as otherwise infirm animals. They also sought to cull mares or animals of insufficient age or size, as well as those of the wrong color. Some inspectors may have been dishonest from the start, while others gave in to temptation from the contractors and pressure from their superiors. Just five months into the war, Quartermaster General Montgomery Meigs told General McClellan: “It is reported to me by Major [Daniel] Rucker [Meigs’s senior subordinate in the capital] that upon charges which he thinks well sustained he has just discharged 11 inspectors of horses at this depot. They are accused of taking bribes for passing horses of inferior quality. “I, at an early period of the purchase of these horses requested Gen. Stoneman to furnish an officer to superintend the inspection of horses for cavalry… Thus far this has not been done. The regular quartermasters are all so fully occupied that it is impossible to put one upon this duty, and I…request in view of the vast sum involved and the great importance to the efficiency of the army of securing a proper and honest inspection, that you direct an officer of each of these branches of the service to be present daily at the inspection in order to prevent by their presence and superintendence all improper conduct in tampering with the inspection by contractors and their agents. “The bribes offered are large enough to be tempting to men such as we are able to obtain for this duty.” At about the same time, Capt. Charles Bell, serving in what would soon be the 3rd Pennsylvania Cavalry, wrote to Stoneman, recommending a man named Corbyn and noting, he “visited this camp on Saturday last for the purpose of attending to some sick and unserviceable government horses, of which I had a great many. Under his care, several of them have already recovered and I can with pleasure state that I think him … the best [Veterinary]Surgeon [emphasis in original] of my acquaintance. If consistent with your plans, I…ask that he be so employed as to be able to give us assistance in future, as it is necessary that a good [Veterinary] Surgeon visit the camp frequently.” The next day, Stoneman wrote to Col. Randolph Marcy, McClellan’s chief of staff, on the topic of veterinarians. “I…present…the following remarks in regard to what I consider a matter of very great importance to the service in general and more particularly so to the cavalry branch. “The material from which the volunteer cavalry is organized necessarily entails upon the service an almost total want of knowledge on the part of both officers and men, of what constitutes a cavalry soldier and among the numerous deficiencies [none] is more conspicuous than ignorance of the animals upon which they are mounted. “I am of the opinion that the deficiency might be [corrected] partially by placing with each regiment a person competent to intrust and advice with the officers, farriers and non-commissioned officers, and attend to the horses where the regiment is serving together. At present, however, the regiments are so divided that it would I think be best to employ a number of veterinary surgeons, to be put in charge of veterinary hospitals … say two on the Virginia side, and two or three on this side of the river. “These surgeons can be employed and paid by the quartermaster … and assigned to duty wherever they are most needed. I think five with such assistants as can be obtained from the cavalry regiments will be sufficient for the wants of the cavalry service in this army. Each hospital should be placed in charge of a commissioned officer with the requisite number of men to take good care of the horses. Fields can be hired and sheds built contiguous to Washington in which the horses can be secured and sheltered and where the proper remedies can be administered. “In addition to the above, I recommend that a competent man be selected by the commanding officer of the two Regular Cav Regts now serving in this army. The compensation for the persons employed as above indicated … might not exceed that of a 2nd Lt of the cavalry service.” Though I do not know exactly when, the army eventually established such a hospital in Arlington. In November 1861, Meigs received the following petition from citizens in Huntington, Pennsylvania. “Five hundred horses have been inspected and branded in our town for the U.S. …We will give only the result of the operation – “First – Among the horses are those that have nearly every disease and unsoundings that injure horse flesh. Some are blind, some spavin, some ring-boned … some broken-winded … some so old as to be utterly useless. Many mere colts, unable to endure active service, some under the standard size, some gray and white ones and mares without count [At that time the army prohibited gray and white horses for general service and mares from any service]. Some bought at prices which prove the buyer and seller considered them of small value, there are horses among them absolutely worth nothing. “Second – These horses are all put out on a contract to keep at the rate of above 40 cents a day, nearly twice the sum at which it would have been done, had there been any chance for competition. It would be simple economy if the government would detail some honest inspector to come here and select the bad ones and give them away or have them shot. The money paid for them is, or will be, thrown away, and every dollar paid to keep them but increases that loss. “This bold, bold infamy excites universal censure… In the name of a bleeding and suffering country we appeal to the proper Department for prompt relief from such unmitigated disgrace as has befallen us.” I believe the earliest mention I have a regimental veterinary surgeon appears in December 1861, when the regimental quartermaster for the 1st New York Lincoln Cavalry told a superior, “The veterinary surgeon employed by me … at the request of Gen’l Stoneman, visits the horses of the regiment every day and any horses found disabled are ordered to the horse hospital.” A couple of days later, Alfred Pleasonton, then a captain, submitted a new organizational plan for the cavalry. He suggested that each squadron receive “two more sergeants for forage sergeants, two additional farriers [for a total of four per squadron] and a veterinary.” Farriers often assumed the role of horse doctors. Pleasonton then suggested that “Each command of two squadrons should have a field officer whose staff should consist of one adjutant, one quartermaster, one commissary, also a sergeant major, a quartermaster sergeant and veterinary surgeon.” Like many of his contemporaries in the early days of the war, Pleasonton envisioned both light and heavy cavalry regiments in the army. “Each regiment of heavy cavalry would require one colonel, one lieut. colonel and four majors, with the same compliment of staff officers as in the light cavalry. One regimental quartermaster, four quartermasters, one regimental commissary, four commissaries, one regimental sergeant major, 4 sergeant majors, one regimental quartermaster sergeant, four quartermaster sergeants, four veterinary surgeons. Total, 5 field officers, 15 staff officers, 14 non-commissioned staff. These numbers to be added to each regimental organization of light cavalry and to complete the organization of the heavy cavalry regiments, one field officers, one adjutant, one quartermaster, one commissary, one sergeant major, one quartermaster sergeant and a veterinary surgeon must still be added.” Lastly, Pleasonton suggested, “A cavalry school and depot should be established by law, where the officers, non-commissioned officers and recruits can be instructed before joining their regiments, where remount horses will be broken, so that each recruit can take a well broken horse with him when he joins his regiment and that the remount horses may also be broken before being sent to the regiment. A veterinary school should be attached to this establishment.” A week after Pleasonton submitted his organizational plan, another officer, who had investigated the complaints lodged by the civilians in Huntington, Pennsylvania, in early November, submitted his report to the adjutant general of the army. I have edited the report substantially as so many of the names mentioned are difficult to decipher. The reader should still get a sense of the problems. The officer, a Major Jones, explained: “…It appears that on the 19th of September, the quartermaster general … gave to Mssrs [Luffer and Southern] each an order to furnish 500 cavalry horses deliverable at Huntington within 30 days… “These reports in connection with the evidence furnished by Inspector —– himself of his own dishonesty or incompetency, probably both, viz, the horses accepted by him, furnish abundant evidence of the determination of the contractors or at least one of them, to make as much out of their contracts as possible, regardless of the means used to obtain their object. “I carefully inspected nearly every horse and found less than 200 fit for the cavalry service, and about 100 good work horses and 100 indifferent ones and 35 mares in foal, the total number of mares being 164. Of the balance, 120 were over age, ranging from 9 to 22 years, 86 under age, being 2- and 3-year-old colts, 60 under the standard height, most of them being ponies, 6 partially and 2 entirely blind, 3 with the heaves…” The army never sanctioned the purchase of mares. “Of the remainder, 130 more or less, about 30 artillery horses unfit to be selected, and the rest so afflicted with various [blemishes], some being … lame and evidently permanently so. Many blemishes among them which should have been reported for other causes also exist. I also found the distemper among the horses and ascertained with absolute certainty that large numbers of them had it when purchased, one having died of it the day after he was [recv’d], and another 6 days afterwards, and since then others have died with it. They are now, however, generally on the ascent, but it probably will attack them all, that have hitherto escaped. “In regard to keeping the horses, I found that Capt. Wilson contracted with two parties, responsible citizens of Huntington or Huntington Co., to keep them at .39 per day per horse and that the contractors gave them out to the farmers in Huntington and Blair counties, who received on an average .25 per day per horse. There is no good reason why the government should not contract directly with the farmers for the keeping of horses [and] … Captain Wilson has initiated steps for having them kept directly by the farmers. “In concluding this report, I would remark that there are many horses among them that can be of no service and which it would be economical to dispose of… “To convey some idea of the profit of the contractors, I would state that one of the best horses was sold to them for .80 and I could hear of some for which over $95 has been given, while a very large number of them — have been bought for prices ranging from $30 to .60 and many of them would have been high at $30, being in fact absolutely worthless for all government purposes. I feel safe in saying that the average cost of these horses to the contractor could not have exceeded .75 per head …” To be Continued Sources: Unpublished Documents from the National Archives David Gerleman, Unchronicled Heroes: A Study of Union Cavalry Horses in the Eastern Theater. Care, Treatment, and Use, 1861-1865, PhD Thesis, 1999. Philip Teigen and Leon Saunders, “This Sorrowful War: A Veterinary Surgeon in the 1862 Shenandoah Valley Campaign,” on the New York Military Museum Website. Paula Whitacre, “‘A Staggering Burden’: Veterinary Medicine in the Civil War,” Journal of the National Museum for Civil War Medicine, Vol. 24, 2 2019.
