From a rain-swept army camp in 1863, Capt. Charles Francis Adams recounted for his family some of the hardships of the cavalry service, noting that the men survived well enough,

but the horses! Such a collection of crow’s bait the eye of man never saw … they stand without shelter, fetlock deep in slush and mud, without a blanket among them, and there they must stand—poor beasts. (Ford 1920, vol. 2:101)

Such dismal treatment and suffering were by no means unusual during the Civil War, and memories of such instances were likely foremost in the mind of a later veterinary historian who charged that “in all wars, big and little, fought by the United States, poor horse management has been an outstanding blot on our military efficiency” (Merillat and Campbell 1935:75).

The subjects of horse-related issues such as care, shoeing, abuse, and veterinary treatment have been only haphazardly touched upon in existing Civil War cavalry historiography. Although the federal government spent approximately $100 million (in 1860 dollars) on horseflesh during the conflict and eventually even created a cavalry bureau to address the specialized needs of the service, it oftentimes did not get fully serviceable animals because of a cumbersome purchase system, ignorant inspectors, dishonest contractors, and a high horse mortality rate caused in part by a lack of trained veterinarians.

Since its inception, the U.S. Army had been notably lax about veterinary care and was frequently criticized throughout the nineteenth century for being “the only one [army] in the civilized world without educated veterinarians” (Bustead 1863; Anonymous 1864b:169–170). The small prewar cavalry force virtually ignored the need for veterinary surgeons and only in 1853 were serious proposals for a veterinary corps submitted to Congress, supported by arguments that educated veterinary personnel would be less expensive than continual remount purchases (Stewart 1983; Wilkes 17 and 31 January 1863). Similar advice was repeated three years later when Capt. George B. McClellan (1857:281) returned from an official observatory European tour advocating in his report establishment of farrier, cavalry, and veterinary training schools, but again Congress ignored the suggestion.

Government parsimony was not the only reason why interest in establishing a formal system of army veterinary care fell by the wayside. Before the war the American veterinary profession received scant respect with the soubriquet “horse and cattle doctor” only tauntingly applied. Attempts to increase public awareness of the need for scientific qualification in veterinary medicine met with only limited success (Anon. 1864c:22; Wilkes 21 December 1861:254; Merillat and Campbell 1935, vol. 2:131, 133, vol. 3:173, 182–183). If the outbreak of the Civil War found the U.S. Army’s medical department ill equipped to deal with the flood of wounded men it soon faced, there was at least an existing skeletal administrative structure upon which to build. But the army was in no way prepared—or had even considered—what to do with the thousands of sick, wounded, and diseased horses and mules that would also unavoidably follow in the wake of any military campaign (Figure 5.1). Furthermore, the decision to field a large volunteer cavalry force inevitably meant the problem of animal wastage would be exacerbated beyond anything the army had ever previously encountered. Like so many of the other complex organizational problems arising from the war, the question of animal healthcare and treatment would be tackled on an ad-hoc emergency basis with varying degrees of success (Stoneman 1861).

Although addressing the healthcare needs of army animals scarcely had been given an official thought in the summer of 1861, a small number of veterinarians did ask the War Department “what provision the Govt. has made for the medical & surgical care of its cavalry horses & what remuneration is made if competent persons are accepted as Veterinary Surgeons?” (Hopkins 1861; Scott 1861). George Dadd, John P. Turner, J. N. Collins, Felix Vogeli, and John Bustead were among the most actively persistent advocates calling for creation of a permanent army veterinary corps, and President Lincoln (Figure 5.2), his cabinet secretaries, and other administration officials all periodically received letters from them asking for veterinary surgeons appointments.

Other applicants even made extravagant claims as to their abilities to cure a multiple of equine diseases, and nearly every aspirant made haste to refer to their congressional endorsements, acquaintanceships with prominent leaders, or European educations to try and win acceptance of their proposals (Florence 1861; Fuller 1861; Shearer 1861; Vogeli 1864). “On behalf of that noble animal the Horse,” Dr. John N. Collins (1861) wrote Lincoln,

I appeal to the head of our government to make a provision if it is not made already, for the medical treatment of our cavalry and other horses not alone the wounds received on the battlefield, but the many diseases they are liable to contract from the large number together and by having a Veterinary Surgeon attached to each regiment many thousands of dollars worth of those animals could be saved.

Figure 5.1. “A Cavalry Charge,” drawing by Edwin Forbes (ca. 1876). Fallen, dead, and wounded men and horses in the foreground illustrate battlefield carnage; but just as for human soldiers, the numbers of horses killed in Civil War battles were vastly outweighed by deaths in camp caused by disease, malnutrition, and exhaustion. (Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, D.C., LC-DIG-ppmsca-20758.)

Similar like-minded individuals wrote to Quartermaster General Montgomery C. Meigs (Figure 5.3), pointing out that although the army reportedly had more than 40,000 animals, no provisions existed for their health and treatment. Meigs, to whom all veterinary inquiries were forwarded, responded that he recognized the importance of veterinarians, but no law existed permitting their appointment (Bustead 1861a, b; Meigs 1861).

Figure 5.2. President Abraham Lincoln, photographed by Alexander Gardner, 9 August 1863. Contrary to legend, Lincoln never offered lieutenant commissions to induce trained veterinarians to join the army as no law permitted it. (Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, D.C., LC-USZ62-2279.)

To correct this lack of legislation George H. Dadd, a prominent veterinary practitioner and teacher—he was referred to by several of his prominent recommenders as “the most capable veterinary surgeon in the United States”—implored several senators and congressmen to sponsor legislation to provide the army with veterinary surgeons as a matter of national importance. Dadd argued that Congress should allow trained veterinarians to rank alongside medical staff so that they might do for the United States what had been done for England and France in preventing unnecessary death and disease in both army and civilian livestock. He also pointed out that army farriers possessed no medical training and thus their services were only of limited value (Dadd 1861a; Moore 1861). As a stopgap measure he suggested that regiments be allowed to appoint veterinarians who then would select intelligent farriers from each company and teach them basic medical knowledge. Furthermore, Dadd advocated veterinary surgeons being given authority to establish camps for the treatment of sick animals and to issue orders to ensure camp sanitation, estimating that the expenses involved would be offset by an anticipated return to service of some 70% of broken-down animals (Dadd 1861b).

Figure 5.3. Quartermaster General Montgomery C. Meigs, photographed in 1865 by Frederick Gutekunst. While acutely aware of the need for trained veterinarians to stem the wastage of army animals, Meigs was unable to convince Congress to create an army veterinary corps. (Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, D.C., LC-DIG-ppmsca-07784.)

Calls even emanated to create a Veterinary Surgeon General’s Office to oversee all unserviceable government horses, yet candidates for the position were told that no law allowed such an office and that veterinarians could be hired only as civilians at quartermaster depots for limited pay (Sibley 1862; Meigs 1863c). Indeed it was the lack of commissioned officer status and low wages that was the largest hurdle keeping the nation’s small pool of trained veterinarians out of the army. Repeatedly, Meigs had to tell applicants that they would neither rank as army officers nor receive pay and allowances as such. Any veterinarians the quartermaster did hire would only serve for limited periods to undertake special assignments, such as conducting unit or depot inspections, and these men would be classified as civilian employees at varying levels of pay (Meigs. 1862c, 1863f).

Due to such dismal prospects it was no wonder then that professionally trained men

could not be obtained, and those who are competent … are not willing for the very small amount of pay offered by the Government to serve, hence but a very small amount of benefit has been derived … to what should have been, had competent veterinary surgeons been employed, or sufficient inducement been offered to bring them into the field. (Anon. 1864a:6)

(See also Wilkes 16 May 1863:163; Merillat and Campbell 1935, vol. 2:147–154; Madison 1879:176)

Army and congressional reluctance to form a permanent veterinary corps arose from the cost-saving and seemingly ingrained belief that company farriers possessed veterinary knowledge and therefore could act as capable horse doctors. The results were generally not encouraging. Thomas Agan was a “fine fellow” appointed to be horse doctor for his company, but by all accounts he knew less about horses than any other man in the unit (Goodhart 1896:80–81). The situation was similar even among the Regulars; in Sidney Davis’s company, the blacksmith served as its horse doctor, but “as a veterinary surgeon I do not think he was successful in many instances, though he would stand for hours grandly contemplating his patients … giving preference to those men who wanted their horses shod.” The same unit had little better success when it employed a civilian whose only claim to distinction, Davis added, was his ability “to look wise and say nothing” (Davis 1994:54, 338; see also Fry 1862:348).

Such medical mismanagement dismayed army horse lovers; one officer was disgusted to find that

the doctoring of sick horses is no one’s particular business, and as a general thing all think that they are competent … to administer. Such practice combined with disease soon finishes the work, and the horse is no more; what is everyone’s business is no one’s. Malpractice in horse is just as fatal as in man … for medicine, of all things, injudiciously used or used by the uninformed, are more fatal than effectual. (Anon. 1864a:5)

Figure 5.4. Camp of the 18th Pennsylvania Cavalry, near Brandy Station, Va., in March 1864. Many farm-raised troopers employed home cures to heal their mounts or appealed to their own regimental surgeons to extract bullets or sew up wounds. (Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, D.C., LC-B8171–7625.)

Even worse, ignorant diagnoses meant that potentially curable maladies like distemper were misdiagnosed as glanders, resulting in many horses being needlessly shot (Turner 1862; Meigs 1864d:889; Denison 1876:77).

The lack of trained horse doctors forced many officers and men to look after their horses themselves (Figure 5.4), with officers, like Charles Russell Lowell, perhaps being more solicitous owing to their vested financial interest and means to employ servants (Emerson 1907:327, 338). Some troopers, like those of the 3rd Pennsylvania, took the utmost pains to heal their mounts and “had rather injure themselves than have their horses harmed,” preferring to nurse their favorite wounded animals rather than request replacements “as their owners would not part with them.” Having to tend to ailing livestock was nothing new to farm boys amidst the rank-and-file who no doubt often harkened back to home cures to try mend their cavalry chargers, such as treating horses’ fevered leg joints and sore heels by applying a variety of poultices (Glazier 1870:131; Regimental History Committee 1905:226; Dornblaser 1884:60).

Some soldier ministrations, however, bordered on butchery; Trooper Luman Tenny employed copious bleeding to cure his horse’s “belly-ache,” and even Robert E. Lee used that time-honored antidote on his horse, Richmond, although the bleeding, coupled with a purgative, resulted in the animal’s death within hours (Tenney 1914:35; Dowdey and Manarin 1961:243). Proof of disastrous results from allowing troopers to randomly treat mounts was well illustrated by an incident in the 3rd Pennsylvania Cavalry where a detail of farm boys was selected to act as regimental horse doctors in the hope that their rural upbringing would prove advantageous. The men were given a horse medicine chest, a book on horse ailments, and 110 diseased horses to treat. Rather than refuse the assignment, the men went ahead and formed boluses from a paste of flour, arsenic, and other drugs, orally administered them, and then waited to see the result. The next day most of the dosed horses were dead and those still alive were on their knees. More deaths followed, and the men’s novice veterinary careers immediately ended (Regimental History Committee 1905:532).

Another alternative employed by troopers was to consult their own regimental doctors about how to treat their horses, extract bullets, or sew up wounds. Surgeon Elias Beck (1931:151) of 3rd Indiana extracted a bullet from his own mount that had lodged near the hip joint, and after the surgery his mount was “fattening up—full of life & as good a horse as is in the Regt.” Men of the 1st Massachusetts regularly consulted Surgeon James Holland with any horse health questions—agricultural journal advice columns often advised readers to consult family physicians if no veterinarian was locally available. Holland’s advice was “always good” (Crowninshield 1891:102).) He had no patience for self-proclaimed horse doctors and was outraged to discover one of them using violent remedies to treat a mare for colic when she was actually suffering from the onset of labor (Crowninshield 1891:294). When the commander of the 1st New York Mounted Rifles appealed for the appointment of an experienced and educated veterinarian, “one fully equal to the responsibilities of this most important post,” he received the oft-repeated official response (Bowen 1900:311; Dodge 1863).

Meigs was aware of the need for good veterinarians, but his hands were tied by regulations and lack of congressional authority. To another officer’s complaint about quack veterinary surgeons employed in West Virginia, Meigs (1863a) wrote,

They would probably apply the same term to anyone … [recommended] to take their places. No person should be employed as a Veterinary Surgeon unless skillful. It is not, however[,] probable that regular graduates of Veterinary colleges can be found in this country in sufficient numbers to supply the number needed in the present military establishment.

(See also Wilkes 25 February 1865:403; Holcombe 1881:340.)

While acceptance of trained veterinarians was largely shunned by the army as unnecessary, there were a few hesitant steps in the direction of improving animal healthcare. In May 1861 Congress added a new regular 6th Cavalry regiment, which was authorized to enlist a veterinary sergeant for each of the regiment’s three battalions to be paid $17 per month (AGO 1862). Not until 3 March 1863, however, did Congress finally sanction one veterinary surgeon for each volunteer cavalry regiment to serve at the rank of sergeant-major and to be paid $75 per month (AGO 1863a; O’Brien and Diefendorf 1864, vol. 1:327–328). The act changed little since few professional veterinary surgeons could be induced to enter the army at such a lowly rank.

The army veterinary selection process was further formalized a few months after formation of an official Cavalry Bureau in July 1863. Under the new rules, veterinary surgeons were to be nominated by cavalry regiment commanders, then recommended by a regimental board of three ranking officers, and then forwarded on to the chief of the Cavalry Bureau, who finally submitted it to the Secretary of War for appointment. A record of the appointments kept by the Adjutant-General’s Office shows that between 1863 and 1865 there were approximately 98 applications for appointment as veterinary surgeon, many made during the war’s last year. Most of these applicants were enlisted men or farriers, with the largest number from New York, Indiana, and Pennsylvania regiments (AGO 1863c; NARA RG 108b; Card 1865b). Even this system was open to abuse. No set standards existed to qualify candidates for the post, and selection largely rested in the colonel’s hands. Some cavalry commanders used the veterinary surgeon position as a berth for disabled or favored soldiers. Merit and competent performance were occasionally rewarded, such as in the case of the Chief Farrier of the 1st Vermont who was recommended to be mustered in as veterinary surgeon because he was both capable and qualified and had a proven track record of nursing many of the regiment’s horses back to health (First Vermont 1864).

Meigs repeatedly had to explain to applicants how the process worked and that the quartermaster could only appoint veterinary surgeons for local depots; field service required direct application to commanders of units that needed them (Meigs 1863c; Sibley 1863a). The law raised other questions: Were the veterinary surgeons hired by the Quartermaster Department or employed by mounted artillery, for instance, still to be paid by previous arrangements (Meigs 1863d,e)? Even in 1864 there was a lack of clarity on this issue, as Gen. Philip Sheridan had to query Washington whether or not the commander of his horse artillery could legally employ a veterinary surgeon. Meigs (1864c) responded,

the employment of veterinary surgeon[s] in the artillery arm is not authorized by existing laws. The necessity of their employment with a Brigade of Horse Artillery is as great, it would seem, as with the same number of cavalry horses and there would be no impropriety in detailing a competent non commissioned officer for such duty, but he would not be entitled to extra pay.

In 1862, the Quartermaster Department looked into supplying each cavalry regiment with a portable veterinary medicine chest to be constructed of lightweight wood with compartments large enough to hold a surgical kit and a three-month supply of medicine. Total list price for the veterinary chest complete with medication was $105.67 (Meigs 1862a; Miller 1980). It is uncertain how many cavalry units actually received the transportable chests, although George F. Parry (1864), a trained veterinarian serving with the 7th Pennsylvania, was delighted to receive in the spring of 1864 “a new Veterinary Med. Chest complete with a splendid lot of medicines.” Even so, items missing from the approved army list of horse medicaments included disinfectants and clinical-diagnostic aids such as thermometers or stethoscopes. A veterinary manual was drafted “to induce men, by informing them of the symptoms, to treat more tenderly the timid life which is disposed to serve them, and is willing to love them” (Turner 1863). Submitted to the army in 1863 for possible inclusion with the horse medicine chests, it was apparently never printed or distributed (Bustead 1864; Duffey 1861).

Treating horses with armies at the front was only part of the problem; an ever-growing issue was what to do about the broken-down animals constantly being generated by the entire military establishment (Figure 5.5). Like other valuable pieces of army equipment, these animals needed to be repaired and returned to service. Early in the war the army’s original method involved hiring civilian hostlers and renting pastureland so that unworked horses would, in effect, restore themselves. This method garnered only limited results since a large percentage of pastured horses and mules suffered differing diseases and often died from being indiscriminately mixed together with little oversight. Experienced cavalry leaders remained adamant that stabling under close supervision was superior as a recruitment measure (Fosses 1864; Wilson 1865; Meigs 1864a,b; Message to Cavalry Bureau 1864; Ekin 1864a).

Figure 5.5. The return of Gen. August. V. Kautz’s exhausted cavalry, sketched by William Waud from an 1864 raid in Virginia. Every Civil War campaign produced a wave of sick, wounded, and exhausted horses and mules. Like other complex problems arising during the conflict, animal healthcare and medical treatment would be addressed on an ad-hoc basis with only a limited degree of success. (Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, D.C., LC-USZ62-138110.)

In July 1863 the War Department established the Cavalry Bureau—the only branch-specific agency created during the war—and installed Gen. George H. Stoneman as chief to tackle the immense task of maintaining and equipping the cavalry (AGO 1863b; Anon. 1863b:3; Kautz n.d.). One of the bureau’s first acts was to establish remount-collection depots throughout the North, the largest being the Giesboro Point facility across the Anacostia River from Washington (Stoneman 1863b) (Figure 5.6). Construction at Giesboro proceeded at a feverish pace to accommodate the 17,000 unserviceable cavalry horses requiring care and treatment that autumn. It eventually burgeoned into a massive complex covering 625 acres with stables, forage houses, storehouses, blacksmith shops, barracks, mess halls, and stockyards able to hold 30,000 animals. The complex dwarfed any previous establishment for recruiting army horses and cost the correspondingly large sum of $1,225,000; monthly operating costs hovered near $180,000 (Sawtelle 1865; Rhodes 1979:328; Thomas 1863; Browning 1865; Pay Invoices 1864; Anon. 1863a:286; Ludington 1864; Stoneman 1863c; Dupuy 1864).

Figure 5.6. Corrals at the U.S. Cavalry Bureau’s Giesboro Point Depot, photographed in 1864 by Andrew J. Russell approximately a year after the depot’s construction began in late summer 1863. (Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, D.C., LC-DIG-ppmsca-08283.)

Finding competent veterinary surgeons to check horse mortality at quartermaster and Cavalry Bureau depots was just as problematic as supplying them to the armies owing to what General Stoneman (1863a) ruefully admitted was the “the compensation now allowed by the Government.” There was, however, no shortage of individuals who promised miracle cures for a wide range of horseflesh ills, although few ever achieved positive results when allowed to test their remedies (Gregson 1864; Wilkes 28 March 1863:50, 58; 29 July 1865; 19 August 1865; Merillat and Campbell 1935, vol. 2:172; Country Gentleman 1863; Bustead 1863; Paaren 1865:53; Chambliss 1865:582; Wilson 1864; Bramhall 1864). One such individual was Alexander Dunbar, a self-proclaimed horse foot expert, who persistently offered, if paid handsomely, to train army farriers in his secret technique to prevent lameness. He demanded a 10-year secrecy oath and a $100,000 fee. Dunbar’s importunities were declined, but other quacks and snake-oil peddlers continually pestered the bureau (Grant 1988 [1866]; Merillat and Campbell 1935, vol. 1:158).

Even men initially thought competent when first employed ended up being dismissed when their treatment methods proved unsatisfactory. When John P. Turner, who had long importuned for a chance to treat army horses, was finally given the chance he turned out to be no more skilled than anyone else at the depot. He was reportedly a poor apothecary who used immense quantities of expensive medicines that killed more horses than were cured (Tompkins 1863; Meigs 1863b). The demand of would-be veterinarians to be supplied with “almost every drug and poison known to medical science” was one of the Quartermaster General’s greatest concerns, and depot chiefs were warned to “have an eye to the matter that the horses are not dosed to death” (Sibley 1863b; Anon. 1863c).

Owing to the imprecise nature of the records, it is hard to state with certainty the exact numbers of animals recruited and returned to duty. Early reports suggested that roughly 50% of all unserviceable animals were eventually recruited, but during the war’s last 14 months that percentage increased. Between April and September of 1864 over 12,405 sick and broken-down animals were turned into the Giesboro depot, approximately 60% of which were once again made serviceable in 30 to 90 days (Ekin 1864b; Norvell 1911:365).

All told, to fight and win the Civil War the Union fielded approximately 258 mounted regiments and 170 independent cavalry companies. Hidden within those statistics was an immense expense in both monetary terms and in lives of animals ruined or destroyed. The best estimates place the total numbers of horses procured for Union armies at over 650,000, with 75,000 animals captured in enemy territory; Rhodes (1979) listed Union appropriations for horse purchases at $123,864,915 and 825,766 horses issued to the armies. For the cavalry alone between 1 May 1861 and 1 January 1864, nearly 260,000 cavalry horses were purchased; the following year an additional 193,388 head were added to the total (Ekin 1866; Ingalls 1865:252–253; Secretary of War 1862–1863:72–73; First Division 1865). Such numbers represented an enormous military investment that even by extremely conservative estimates tallied over $95 million (Meigs 1864d:906; 1865:221).

As the war ground to a close in 1865 and Union armies demobilized, the need for veterinarians was still keenly felt. Between 1 May 1865 and 2 August 1866, over 207,000 horses and mules were auctioned off in a massive government clearance sale that was a boon to buyers, although fears abounded that the dispersal of army stock would spread deadly contagious diseases far and wide (Meigs 1865:221, 258; Stanton 1866:1032; NARA RG 92j, vol. 1:90–91, 100–102, 103–104, 126–130; Card 1865a). Farmers claiming to have been victimized by buying sick army animals cautioned others and some even believed “it [would be] better for the country if the [Quartermaster] department had killed every mule and horse owned by the United States, than to spread [glanders] all over the land” (Anon. 1865a:301–302). Leading agricultural journals, such as Prairie Farmer and Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, advised that government sales be avoided as the risk of epizootic was too great to rationalize the purchase of questionable stock. Such periodicals also reminded readers of the national need for competent veterinarians and criticized “the government’s parsimonious course in that respect” (Anon. 1865a:301–302; 1865b:349; Wilkes 21 March 1863:42; Merillat and Campbell 1935, vol. 2:164, 174; Cavalry Bureau 1864).

While it can be argued that the carnage of the Civil War helped modernize the medical profession and improve the way wounded soldiers were treated, no similar claim can be made for veterinary care. The army’s low priority toward securing comprehensive veterinary care is reflected in the amounts expended on it during the war. For fiscal 1862 only $2,213 was spent on veterinary surgeons with an additional $8,990 for animal medicines; in 1863 the amounts rose to $16,631 and $39,292 respectively. For 1864, there were additional increases to $46,780 and $168,159, but by the end of fiscal 1865 disbursements for veterinary surgeons dropped to $28,041 and medicines to $107,522 (Meigs 1862b, 1863g, 1864d:876, 1865:252; Paaren 1865:53; Pleyel 1864). Averaged for the entire war the U.S. Army spent only $1,951 per month for veterinary surgeons and $6,750 per month for horse medicines throughout the conflict—figures that represent only a fraction of what was needed to affect a truly dramatic difference in cavalry horse health (Figure 5.7).

Figure 5.7. “Lt. King’s horse,” ca. 1862–1865 (photographer unknown). Although the U.S. Army spent over $100 million on horses during the conflict, it distributed only $93,665 for veterinarian pay and $323,963 for equine medicines for the entire war (Meigs 1862b, 1863g, 1864d, 1865). (Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, D.C., LC-DIG-cwpb-03786.)

Proposed reform advice, such as organizing horse hospitals with segregated wards according to disease and drugs being dispensed only on written prescription, were quickly forgotten as the army shifted from war to peace (Paaren 1865). Also tossed aside were suggestions that an official veterinary college be established despite pleas that doing so would provide “a great benefit to the public service … [and] promote our agricultural pursuits and be useful in … private walks of life” (Pleyel 1864). The drastically reduced postwar army shelved any ideas regarding veterinarians. Not until 1881 were cavalry veterinary sergeants even required to be graduates of reputable veterinary schools. For 50 years after the end of the Civil War the status, training, and authority of army veterinarians remained largely frozen. Not until June 1916, with rumblings of possible United States involvement in World War I, did Congress finally authorize creation of an army Veterinary Corps. This delayed piece of legislation at last granted veterinarians the commissioned officer rank they had long sought, although advancement to the rank of major was possible only after 20 years of service (Miller 1961). Could more have been done to save large numbers of army horses lost during the war? Certainly, but distrust of a nascent veterinary profession, lack of knowledge of microbial diseases, primitive medicines, forage shortages, and poor camp sanitation coupled with inattentive care all conspired with deadly effect on Union cavalry horses. The history of Civil War veterinarians still has yet to be fully explored, but what is transparently clear is that poor veterinary care was indeed an outstanding blot on the army.

References

Abbreviations
AGO	Adjutant Generals Office
NARA	National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C.
RG	Record Group

AGO. 1862. General Orders No. 91, 29 July. War Department et al. 1880–1901, ser. 3, vol. 2:270–283.

———. 1863a. General Orders No. 73, 24 March. War Department et al. 1880–1901, ser. 3, vol. 3:85–99.

———. 1863b. General Order No. 236, 28 July. War Department et al. 1880–1901, ser. 3, vol. 3:580.

———. 1863c. General Order No. 259. War Department et al. 1880–1901, ser.3, vol. 3:605–606.

Anonymous. 1863a. “Inspection of Army Horses.” In Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times, ed. George Wilkes, 3 January 1863, 286.

———. 1863b. The Cavalry Bureau. Army and Navy Journal, (29 Aug.):3.

———. 1863c. “The United States Army: The Transportation Bureau and Its Value.” New York Herald, 30 October 1863.

———. 1864a. “Army Horses.” Prairie Farmer, 2 January 1864, 5–6.

———. 1864b. “Offices and Duties of Veterinary Surgeons in the French Army.” Prairie Farmer, 12 March 1864, 169–170.

———. 1864c. “The Importance of Veterinary Education.” Prairie Farmer, 9 July 1864, 22.

———. 1865a. [Article title unknown.] Prairie Farmer, 21 October 1865, 301–302.

———. 1865b. [Article title unknown.] Prairie Farmer, 11 November 1865, 349.

Beck, Elias H. 1931. “Letters of a Civil War Surgeon.” Indiana Magazine of History, 27, no. 2 (June):132–163.

Bowen, James R. 1900. Regimental History of the First New York Dragoons. Battle Creek, Mich.: Author.

Bramhall, E.C. 1864. Message to Cavalry Bureau Chief, 22 April. NARA RG 92f.

Browning, George. 1865. Message to James A. Ekin, 23 March. NARA RG 92c.

Bustead, John. 1861a. Message to Simon Cameron, 30 August 1861. NARA RG 92a.

———. 1861b. Message to Abraham Lincoln, 23 December. NARA RG 92a.

———. 1863. Message to Edwin M. Stanton, 16 December. NARA RG 108a.

———. 1864. Message to Edwin M. Stanton, 24 June. NARA RG 92d, vol. 1:125.

Card, B.C. 1865a. Message to Charles G. Sawtelle, 11 November 1865, NARA RG 92b, vol. 88.

———. 1865b. Message to Felix Vogeli, 11 November. NARA RG 92b, vol. 88.

Cavalry Bureau. 1864. Circular, 28 March. NARA RG 108c.

Chambliss. W.P. 1865. Message to James H. Wilson, 13 January. War Department et al. 1880–1901, ser. 1, vol. 45, pt. 2, pp. 581–583.

Collins, John N. 1861. Message to Abraham Lincoln, 9 September. NARA RG 92a.

Country Gentleman, The. 1863. [Article title unknown.] The Country Gentleman: A Journal for the Farm, the Garden, and the Fireside, 29 October 1863, 289.

Crowninshield, Benjamin. 1891. A History of the First Regiment of Massachusetts Cavalry Volunteers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Dadd, George H. 1861a. Message to Simon Cameron, 10 July. NARA RG 92a.

———. 1861b. Message to John A. Gurley, 9 December. NARA RG 92a.

Davis, Sidney M. 1994. Common Soldier—Uncommon War: Life as a Cavalryman in the Civil War. Ed. Charles F. Cooney. Baltimore: John H. Davis Jr.

Denison, Frederic. 1876. Sabres and Spurs: The First Regiment Rhode Island Cavalry in the Civil War 1861–1865. Central Falls, R.I.: First Rhode Island Cavalry Veteran Association.

Dodge, Charles C. 1863. Message to George H. Stoneman, 19 February. NARA RG 393b, vol. 2.

Dornblaser, Thomas Franklin. 1884. Sabre Strokes of the Pennsylvania Dragoons in the War of 1861–1865. Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society.

Dowdey, Clifford, and Louis H. Manarin, eds. 1961. The Wartime Papers of Robert E. Lee. Boston: Little, Brown.

Duffey, Edward. 1861. Message to Montgomery C. Meigs, 14 October. NARA RG 92c.

Dupuy, Horatio A. 1864. Message to James A. Ekin, 25 January. NARA RG 92i.

Ekin, James A. 1864a. Message to Christopher C. Angur, 1 July. NARA RG 92h.

———. 1864b. Message to Montgomery C. Meigs, 27 October. NARA RG 92h.

———. 1866. Message to Montgomery C. Meigs, 31 January. NARA RG 92h.

Emerson, Edward W., ed. 1907. Life and Letters of Charles Russell Lowell. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

First Division. 1865. Fiscal Report, 17 October. NARA RG 92h.

First Vermont (unknown). 1864. Message to Samuel Breck, 1 April. NARA RG 94.

Florence, Thomas. 1861. Message to Abraham Lincoln, 27 November. NARA RG 92a.

Ford, C. Worthington, ed. 1920. A Cycle of Adams Letters 1861–1865. 2 vols. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Fosses, Julius F. 1864. Message to Edwin M. Stanton, 10 January. NARA RG 92c.

Fry, James B. 1862. Message to W.J. Palmer, 16 August. War Department et al. 1880–1901, ser. 1, vol. 16, pt. 2, pp. 348–349.

Fuller, R.C. 1861. Message to Simon Cameron, 22 August. NARA RG 92a.

Glazier, William. 1870. Three Years in the Federal Cavalry. New York: R.H. Ferguson.

Goodhart, Briscoe. 1896. History of the Independent Loudoun Virginia Rangers. Washington, D.C.: Press of McGill and Wallace.

Grant, Ulysses S. 1988 [1866]. Message to Montgomery C. Meigs, 10 February 1866. In The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, vol. 16, 1866, ed. John Y. Simon, pp. 54–58. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Gregson, John. 1864. Message to G.A.H. Blake, May. NARA RG 92f.

Holcombe, A. A. 1881. “Army Veterinary Medicine.” American Veterinary Review, 5(Nov.):335–349.

Hopkins A.J. 1861. Message to Simon Cameron, 7 August. NARA RG 92a.

Ingalls, Rufus. 1865. Report of operations, 1 July 1864–30 June 1865, 28 September. War Department et al. 1890–1901, ser. 1, vol. 51, pt. 1, pp. 251–256.

Kautz, August V. (n.d.) “Reminiscences of the Civil War.” Manuscript Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Ludington, E.H. 1864. Message to James Hardie 10 May. NARA RG 159.

McClellan, George B. 1857, “Report on the United States Cavalry.” In Report of the Secretary of War Communicating the Report of Captain George B. McClellan, One of the Officers Sent to the Seat of War in Europe, in 1855 and 1856, pp. 277–288. Washington, D.C.: A.O.P. Nicholson.

Madison, F.C. 1879. An Epidemic among Horses in Fort Randall, Nebraska, 1856. American Veterinary Review, 3(August):173–179.

Meigs, Montgomery C. 1861. Message to John Bustead, 30 July. NARA RG 92b.

———. 1862a. Message to Daniel H. Rucker, 28 October. NARA RG 92c.

———. 1862b. Quartermaster’s Department annual report for fiscal year ending 30 June 1862, 18 November. War Department et al. 1880–1901, ser. 3, vol. 2, pp. 785–843.

———. 1862c. Message to Felix Vogeli, 16 December. NARA RG 92b, vol. 65.

———. 1863a. Message to Edwin M. Stanton, 10 January. NARA RG 92c.

———. 1863b. Message to R. McClure, 12 January. NARA RG 92b, vol. 65.

———. 1863c. Message to Moses W. Jenks, 18 February. NARA RG 92b, vol. 66.

———. 1863d. Message to Lorenzo Thomas, 6 April. NARA RG 92b, vol. 67.

———. 1863e. Message to John Arnold, 13 May. NARA RG 92b, vol. 68.

———. 1863f. Message to Julius Stahel, 18 May. NARA RG 92b, vol. 68.

———. 1863g. Quartermaster Department annual report for fiscal year ending 30 June 1863, 4 December. War Department et al. 1880–1901, ser. 3, vol. 3, pp. 1118–1126.

———. 1864a. Message to James A. Ekin, 2 June. NARA RG 92e.

———. 1864b. Message to James A. Ekin, 2 June. NARA RG 92f.

———. 1864c. Message to Henry W. Halleck, 30 September. NARA RG 92b, vol. 80.

———. 1864d. Annual report of operations of Quartermaster Department for fiscal year ending 30 June 1864, 3 November. War Department et al. 1880–1901, ser. 3, vol. 4, pp. 874–918.

———. 1865. Annual report of operations of Quartermaster Department for fiscal year ending 30 June 1865. To Edwin M. Stanton, 8 November. War Department et al. 1880–1901, ser. 3, vol. 5, pp. 212–301.

Merillat, Louis A., and Delwin Campbell, 1935. Veterinary Military History of the United States: With a Brief Record of the Development of Veterinary Education, Practice, Organization and Legislation. Kansas City, Mo.: Haver-Glover Laboratories.

Message to Cavalry Bureau. 1864. 17 May 1864. NARA RG 92g.

Miller, Everett B. 1961. “Evolution of Military Veterinary Medicine, 1775–1916.” In United States Army Veterinary Service in World War II, chap. 1, pp. 1–4. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army. http://history.​amedd.​army.​mil/​booksdocs/​wwii/​vetservicewwii/​chapter1.​htm (accessed 5 September 2012).

———. 1980. “A Veterinarian’s Notes on the Civil War.” Paper presented for the 3rd formal meeting of the American Veterinary Historical Society, Washington, D.C., 22 July 1980.

Moore, W.H. 1861. Message to Salmon P. Chase, 12 December. NARA RG 92a.

NARA RG 92a. Letters Received by the Secretary of War and Transferred to the Quartermaster General, 1861–1862.

NARA RG 92b. Letters Sent by the Quartermaster-General.

NARA RG 92c. Quartermaster-General, Consolidated Correspondence.

NARA RG 92d. Quartermaster-General, General Halleck’s Book.

NARA RG 92e. Cavalry Bureau & 1st Division, Letters Received 1863.

NARA RG 92f. Cavalry Bureau & 1st Division, Letters Received March to April 1864.

NARA RG 92g. Cavalry Bureau & 1st Division, Letters Received 1864.

NARA RG 92h. Press Copies of Letters Sent to the Quartermaster-General 1864–69.

NARA RG 92i. Cavalry Bureau & 1st Division, Letters Received 1863.

NARA RG 92j. Quartermaster-General, Horse Purchases and Sales by Department.

NARA RG 94. Orders and Letters Books.

NARA RG 108a. Letters Received by the Cavalry Bureau.

NARA RG 108b. Applications for Appointment at Veterinary Surgeon, 1863–1865.

NARA RG 108c. Letters Sent by the Chief of the Cavalry Bureau.

NARA RG 159. Inspector General’s Office, Letters Sent, 1863–1876.

NARA RG 393a. Army of the Potomac, Cavalry Corps, Letters and Telegrams Sent.

NARA RG 393b. Army of the Potomac Cavalry Corps, Letters, Telegrams, Reports, and Lists Received, 1861–1865.

Norvell, Guy S. 1911. The Equipment and Tactics of Our Cavalry 1861–65 Compared with the Present. Journal of the Military Service Institution of the U.S., 49:360–376.

O’Brien, Thomas M., and Oliver Diefendorf. 1864. General Orders of the War Department, Embracing the Years 1861, 1862 & 1863. 2 vols. New York: Derby and Miller.

Paaren, Nicholai H. 1865. Message to George S. Browning, 12 April. NARA RG 92c, entry 225.

Parry, George F. 1864. Civil War Diaries, 5 April. George F. Parry Family Papers, Manuscript Collection, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Pay Invoices (Construction Worker Final). 1864. May. NARA RG 92c.

Pleyel, Emanuel J. 1864. Message to James H. Wilson, 8 February. Robert Todd Lincoln Collection, Manuscript Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Regimental History Committee. 1905. History of the Third Pennsylvania Cavalry in the American Civil War 1861–1865. Philadelphia: Franklin Printing.

Rhodes, Charles D. 1979. “Mounting and Remounting of the Federal Cavalry.” In The Photographic History of the Civil War, vol. 4, The Cavalry, ed. Francis Trevelyan Miller, pp. 319–336. New York: Review of Reviews. [Originally published 1911.]

Sawtelle, Charles G. 1865. Message to James A. Ekin, 25 February. NARA RG 92c.

Scott, John. 1861. Message to Simon Cameron, 2 November. NARA RG 92a.

Secretary of War. 1862–1863. Report of the Secretary of War. H. Exec. Doc., 37th Cong., 3rd sess.

Shearer, S.C. 1861. Message to Simon Cameron, 12 November 1861. NARA RG 92a.

Sibley, Ebenezer S. 1862. Message to Felix Vogeli, 1 December. NARA RG 92b, vol. 64.

———. 1863a. Message to J. Scott, 2 January. NARA RG 92b, vol. 65.

———. 1863b. Message W.W. Smith, 16 July. NARA RG 92b, vol. 70.

Stanton, Edwin M. 1866. Message to Andrew Johnson, 14 November. War Department et al. 1880–1901, ser. 3, vol. 5, 1031–1045.

Stewart, Miller J. 1983. “Too Little, Too Late.” Modern Veterinary Practice, (Nov.):894–898.

Stoneman, George H. 1861. Message to Robert B. Marcy, 17 September. NARA RG 393a.

———. 1863a. Message to Edwin M. Stanton, 15 October. War Department et al. 1880–1901, ser. 3, vol. 3, pp. 884–886.

———. 1863b. Message to John C. Kelton, 30 October. War Department et al. 1880–1901, ser. 1, vol. 29, pt. 2, pp. 398–399.

———. 1863c. Message to Edwin M. Stanton, 23 December. NARA RG 108c.

Tenney, Luman H. 1914. War Diary of Luman Harris Tenney, 1861–1865. Cleveland, Ohio: Evangelical Publishing House.

Thomas, C.W. 1863. Message to Edwin M. Stanton, 22 September. NARA RG 92c.

Tompkins, Charles H. 1863. Message to Daniel H. Rucker, 22 May. NARA RG 92b, vol. 70.

Turner, John P. 1862. Message to Montgomery C. Meigs, 25 June. NARA RG 92b, vol. 62.

———. 1863. “Formula for the Field Practice of the United States Army for the Treatment of the Horse in the Early Stages of Disease.” NARA RG 92c.

Vogeli, Felix. 1864. Message to Abraham Lincoln, 26 April. Robert Todd Lincoln Collection, Manuscript Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

War Department et al. 1880–1901. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. 128 vols. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Wilkes, George, ed. 1859–1868. Wilkes’ Spirit of the Times [periodical]. New York.

Wilson, James H. 1864. Message to W.D. Whipple, 30 December 1864. NARA RG 92f.

———. 1865. Message to W. P. Chambliss, 25 February. War Department et al. 1880–1901, ser. 1, vol. 49, pt. 1, p. 768.