Question on Cavalry, Mounted Rifles, Mounted Infantry, Please?

Ok, these are all extremely good questions to go track down, and also things which would not have occured to me- at all, so thank you. I came across a Google book on the 11th, which will give me those answers now that I know what to look for, at least as far as the AoP, etc. Building a better knowledge base on the Civil War, this is a little where I am anyway, making sense of who-was-what-and-where-and-why. NOT conversant at all, there's an awful lot to learn.

Yes, I'm still inclined to think it was an error also, is the thing. The single aspect which at least makes me keep trying to track this down ( well, a few reasons, I mean why I'm not discounting it altogether ) is that the now-elusive blurb was part of a written Schuylkill County history, not a David Adams relative perhaps attempting to have him appear more ' glorious ' riding off to battle on a horse. Geesh- you know what I mean, the kind of thing one bumps into.
 
I was curious about Dismounted Cavalry. Were they simply men without horses or saddle/tack/equipment and temporarily organized as infantry units until they could procure remounts?

For example, during the Vicksburg Campaign, Brig. General Martin Green's brigade was composed of Arkansas Infantry/Sharpshooters and the 1 & 3 Missouri Cavalry (dismounted).
 
Then you get to JH Morgan. Whose units were a totally different breed. What he did was the ride and walk method. First the cavalry took off riding down the road, while the infantry hoofed it. when the cav got out about 5-6 miles they dismounted and started walking, without the horses. Meanwhile the horses got a rest and watered. When the infantry got to where the horese were they hopped on them and rode them for 5 or 6 miles again. They then got off and started walking again-without the horses. When the original cav troops caught back up to their horses they saddled up and started riding. It's all a kinda leap-frog movement. He that way got his troops there faster and in a fresher condition to fight. I gleaned this info from a Dee Alexander book on Morgan.
 
I was curious about Dismounted Cavalry. Were they simply men without horses or saddle/tack/equipment and temporarily organized as infantry units until they could procure remounts?

For example, during the Vicksburg Campaign, Brig. General Martin Green's brigade was composed of Arkansas Infantry/Sharpshooters and the 1 & 3 Missouri Cavalry (dismounted).
From my understanding, dismounted cavalry means that they were originally cavalry who permanently became infantry for a need of more infantry at the time. For instance, when Granbury's Texas brigade was formed in 1862, many of the regiments that made up the brigade were Texas cavalry regiments, the 17th, 18th, 24th, and 25th Texas Cavalry. They were dismounted and turned into infantry, traveling and fighting on foot with muskets and bayonets. Many of the men in the Texas cavalry, after their regiment became dismounted deserted because they were older men who joined the cavalry so they wouldn't have to walk.
 
Last edited:
That makes sense- I was just thinking about the sheer milage in marching infantry put in. Yes, so if someone did join as Cavalry specifically because they knew they probably could not deal with those massive marches, it's be quite a blow to be told you were no longer the horse portion of that set up. The deserted word seems to hold a stigma when we see it in papers, 150 years later- I always think it's amazing you didn't see a LOT more of it, discipline notwithstanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AUG
I was curious about Dismounted Cavalry. Were they simply men without horses or saddle/tack/equipment and temporarily organized as infantry units until they could procure remounts?

For example, during the Vicksburg Campaign, Brig. General Martin Green's brigade was composed of Arkansas Infantry/Sharpshooters and the 1 & 3 Missouri Cavalry (dismounted).

As just one example, the 21st Pennsylvania Cavalry was dismounted. Not only were their horses taken, they turned in their cavalry weapons and were armed with standard muzzle-loading infantry weapons, and then proceeded to fight as infantry thereafter.
 
As just one example, the 21st Pennsylvania Cavalry was dismounted. Not only were their horses taken, they turned in their cavalry weapons and were armed with standard muzzle-loading infantry weapons, and then proceeded to fight as infantry thereafter.

So then they maintained the term "cavalry" as a point of pride, and maybe the hope that someday they would ride again? I assume it varied, but were they dismounted as a result of attrition of horses or were they raised as cavalry and never able of procure enough horses to even start out as cavalry? Or dismounted organizationally to simply to fill the never ending need for infantry?
 
So then they maintained the term "cavalry" as a point of pride, and maybe the hope that someday they would ride again? I assume it varied, but were they dismounted as a result of attrition of horses or were they raised as cavalry and never able of procure enough horses to even start out as cavalry? Or dismounted organizationally to simply to fill the never ending need for infantry?

It was the last regiment of cavalry raised by Pennsylvania, and the personnel were needed as infantry. They maintained their official designation, but fought as infantry.
 
So then they maintained the term "cavalry" as a point of pride, and maybe the hope that someday they would ride again? I assume it varied, but were they dismounted as a result of attrition of horses or were they raised as cavalry and never able of procure enough horses to even start out as cavalry? Or dismounted organizationally to simply to fill the never ending need for infantry?
I would think that they were still considered cavalry rather than switch their name to infantry because there were already infantry regiments that existed. For example the 1st Missouri Cavalry couldn't switch to 1st Missouri Infantry because there already was a 1st Missouri Infantry.
 
Yes, so if someone did join as Cavalry specifically because they knew they probably could not deal with those massive marches, it's be quite a blow to be told you were no longer the horse portion of that set up...

Another possible "blow" may have been to the wallet; I remember somewhere that cavalrymen were paid more in the form of an allowance for the upkeep of their horses. The designation as cavalry ( dismounted ) instead of "dismounted cavalry" supposedly allowed them to retain the stipend, softening the economic blow.

So then they maintained the term "cavalry" as a point of pride, and maybe the hope that someday they would ride again? I assume it varied, but were they dismounted as a result of attrition of horses or were they raised as cavalry and never able of procure enough horses to even start out as cavalry? Or dismounted organizationally to simply to fill the never ending need for infantry?

This brings up another problem for Confederate horsemen: they continued to OWN their mounts, unlike Union troopers whose mounts were government property. That meant if a Union cavalryman's horse was killed or disabled he would get another one issued to him; a Confederate was out of luck! Then lacking his horse, he had no choice but to be transferred to the "web feet" infantry. For this reason, Confederate cavalrymen were as detested by many southern farmers as their Yankee counterparts, because of their tendency to steal animals to replace their dead or worn-out mounts!
 
Another possible "blow" may have been to the wallet; I remember somewhere that cavalrymen were paid more in the form of an allowance for the upkeep of their horses. The designation as cavalry ( dismounted ) instead of "dismounted cavalry" supposedly allowed them to retain the stipend, softening the economic blow.



This brings up another problem for Confederate horsemen: they continued to OWN their mounts, unlike Union troopers whose mounts were government property. That meant if a Union cavalryman's horse was killed or disabled he would get another one issued to him; a Confederate was out of luck! Then lacking his horse, he had no choice but to be transferred to the "web feet" infantry. For this reason, Confederate cavalrymen were as detested by many southern farmers as their Yankee counterparts, because of their tendency to steal animals to replace their dead or worn-out mounts!
The Confederates had NO remount system? That's hard to imagine. I'm certain there was always a shortage of horses, but even Braxton Bragg had to know that horses got sick and killed in battle.
 
The Confederates had NO remount system? That's hard to imagine. I'm certain there was always a shortage of horses, but even Braxton Bragg had to know that horses got sick and killed in battle.
The Union found a way to supply remounts (although never enough). That was something the Confederacy was unable to do. Chalk that up in the "unfair" column.
 
The horse, with all its power and speed is a delicate animal. A week or two of hard work without adequate fodder or forage and it became quite worn out.

By the time I was born, The Dad had a tractor. Correction, he was transitioning from horses to a tractor, as were the neighboring farmers. Not one of them would dream of working horses all day and not taking care of them in the evening. Without the horses, their livelihood was compromised.

Unfortunately, cavalry and dray horses during the war could not expect that care. If the horse was lucky, it was traded out before it died in the traces. Fully 1/3 of a wagon train was devoted to carrying feed and fodder for the horses used in pulling that wagon train. Any less than that and the horses started fading.
 
The Confederates had NO remount system? That's hard to imagine. I'm certain there was always a shortage of horses, but even Braxton Bragg had to know that horses got sick and killed in battle.

A friend of mine who's a very occasional poster here is head of a small North Texas SCV camp in Bonham named for local personality Capt. ( actually only a sergeant, according to any records for him in the 3d Tex. Cav. ) Robert "Bob" Lee. He tells me that from what he can figure, Lee was sent back to Texas around 1862 - 63 by either his colonel or Brig. Gen. "Red" Jackson whose brigade they were in, or both. His job apparantly was to bring back "remounts"; unfortunately, I don't know any of the other details. Postwar, Lee was gunned down in a conflict with local scallywags led by one Peacock in what's known as the Lee-Peacock Feud.
 
I'm not sure which history you found. I skimmed the Samuel Bates regimental history of the 11th PVI's 3-month and 3-year service. Your GG granduncle is mentioned on page 295. I did not see any mention of a mounted company. However, I did not have time to read all of it. You may want to take a look. The 3-year service starts on page 247. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/aby3439.0001.001/265?view=image&size=100
 
So then they maintained the term "cavalry" as a point of pride, and maybe the hope that someday they would ride again? I assume it varied, but were they dismounted as a result of attrition of horses or were they raised as cavalry and never able of procure enough horses to even start out as cavalry? Or dismounted organizationally to simply to fill the never ending need for infantry?

Dr. Anne Bailey addressed this at Jefferson at her presentation on Texans in the Trans-Mississippi. As units became "unhorsed," they refused to be known as infantry (Apparently Texans are hard-headed. Who knew?), so it was a sop to their er......vanity. :smile: I'm sure that was the case elsewhere. I grew up in a family where the motto was "If I can do it horseback."
 
When in North GA it was remarked by the locals that the Texans (8th TX Cav) would mount their horse to cross the street. They lived on their horses and they also took care of them as best they could, in some cases better care of their horses than themselves, something that was noted as odd by some of the locals.

Both sides suffered a shortage of horses throughout the war. The AoC & AoT US had a chronic shortage of horses up until the end of the war. The CS had a similar issue w/ whole units being dismounted and their horses transferred to other units. Dismounted Cav usually turned in their cav arms and were issued Inf weapons and gear.
 
When in North GA it was remarked by the locals that the Texans (8th TX Cav) would mount their horse to cross the street. They lived on their horses......

Well....yes. Why would you walk when you can ride??????? :grant::lee: I've never heard about these two hiking much, either, when they had the choice. Maybe that was Grant's incentive to be a general?
 
Well....yes. Why would you walk when you can ride??????? :grant::lee: I've never heard about these two hiking much, either, when they had the choice. Maybe that was Grant's incentive to be a general?
Somehow, I think Grant would have had a horse if he were a private.
 
Back
Top