On January 12, 1863, General Meigs responded to a letter from a Robert McClure in Philadelphia. McClure may have served in the 4^th Pennsylvania Infantry as a captain and major and later may have received a commission as colonel of the 154^th Pennsylvania Infantry, a nine-month regiment, that never mustered into service. McClure’s letter may be in the quartermaster records, but I have not searched for it. Meigs, however, gives us a brief idea of the suggestion McClure had sent to General Halleck.

“[Reference] your letter to Maj. Gen. Halleck embracing your views with regard to a hospital establishment for diseased horses…You are…informed…that the Government has a well arranged and conducted hospital establishment in Washington.” As Meigs almost certainly copied General Halleck with his reply, he added a report submitted by a subordinate to Col. Daniel Rucker days earlier regarding the hospital.

“I…submit the following report of the operation of the hospital stables under charge of Veterinary Surgeon J. F. Turner for December 1862 – 1503 unserviceable horses received, 1232 returned to duty, 16 died, including 3 from Farcy, 4 from general debility, 3 from diseases of the intestines, 5 from diseases of the brain and 1 of pneumonia.” I do not know exactly where Turner’s hospital stood, but in June there was a corral for “horses infected with contagious disease” in Arlington.

Within two weeks of taking command of the Army of the Potomac, Joseph Hooker announced that he had a veterinary surgeon attached to his headquarters. Unfortunately, I cannot read his name and have not found him mentioned in other lists of Hooker’s staff. The general referred to the man as Mr. rather than by a military rank suggesting he was, at least at the time, a civilian. The order put the army on notice that the man would “visit the different corps of the army and make examinations and inspections of the public animals and is fully authorized to give such directions for the treatment of diseases among them, as may be necessary and in the cases of public horses affected with glanders he is authorized to order them to be shot. All officers of the Quartermaster Dept. will afford him every facility and officers of artillery and cavalry are requested to do the same.”

Four days later, a Boston newspaper carried the following, under the heading of Army Horses.

“A Washington dispatch states that the subject of army horses has assumed a degree of importance not much understood as yet by the public. The daily loss to government through the mismanagement of animals is enormous. There is no doubt that the employment of veterinary surgeons and skillful farriers would have prevented much of the great waste from this cause. The horse hospital receives over one hundred horses daily. The daily average of those that die, or are shot, is twenty-six, and thirty per day are sold for almost nothing, so that the average daily loss is three thousand dollars or more, in the Quartermaster’s department at Washington alone. The losses in the field service are also enormous.”

The Enrollment Act, of March 3, 1863, often referred to as the Conscription Act, included a section stating that “Each cavalry regiment should have one veterinary surgeon with the rank of a regimental sergeant major whose compensation shall be $75 a month.” Two weeks later, Gen. David Gregg, commanding the 3^rd Division, identified three troopers, one each from the 1^st Pennsylvania, 10^th New York and, I believe the Oneida Cavalry, as being “detailed to assist in taking charge of sick and lame horses in Division Veterinary Surgeon’s Dept.” Clearly, the army now recognized the problem. However, the degree to which the service did anything to bring about meaningful change is questionable – at least to me. Put another way, I just do not think the army ever truly got behind the idea and I suspect many within the army still saw veterinarians as quacks at the end of the war.

A week later, a veterinary surgeon at Hilton Head, South Carolina, wrote to an assistant quartermaster, probably the officer assigned to the garrison at Hilton Head. As all the horses and mules sent to the island went by ship, the captain passed the letter up the line, eventually reaching Colonel Rucker and General Meigs in Washington.

“…On making the several inspections my attention was particularly called to the want of proper accommodations in the transports and the generally filthy condition of the animals brought by them… from Washington.  There were cases of Glanders…and I am informed that all the horses brought…were taken from Northern hospitals previous to shipment… The greater portion of these horses were very much debilitated, bruised on the voyage, and covered with vermin and will require time and attention to fit them for service…

“The animals … arrived in a filthy condition. Seven have since died at Beaufort, S.C. to which place they were immediately forwarded without previous landing… I… call attention to the inadequacy of all these vessels for conveying so large a number of horses.  They are too small to admit of proper stalls with gangway in the rear of each to admit of their being cleaned out.  The animals have thus to stand in impurity during the whole of the passage.

“No attention seemed to be paid to the character of the forage on board transports, hence so many deaths during the voyage.  Had bran been placed on the vessels…scores of valuable animals would have been saved… It is an unnecessary waste of public funds to ship animals which on arriving at their destination would not pay the expense of their transit were they to be submitted to public sale.”

The letter passed over the desk of Gen. David Hunter, who added, “…Of the 358 horses recently sent… 23…were diseased, and all were so injured by transportation in unpadded stalls in small schooners as to present a very miserable appearance in being landed, and to require much care and several weeks nursing before being in condition for active service.  It may be added that the horses were not well selected… and that few of them, though ordered mainly for batteries, had the necessary strength.”

While such descriptions sound terrible, one must keep in mind that the military did not have its own fleet of vessels built for specific purposes, such as transporting horses and designed to easily allow the stalls to be cleaned. Rather, the quartermaster contracted with civilian ship owners, took what was available, made them work as well as possible for the purpose at hand and probably overpaid in the process.

Orders sending officers to duty as horse inspectors seem to increase beginning in the spring of 1863. While I do not believe I have seen anything from the army defining doing so as a new policy, there appears to be an uptick in the practice.

In April, Capt. John Green, 2^nd U.S., was sent at Hooker’s request to examine horses arriving in the capital. And, as Meigs told Colonel Rucker, “Such horses as the cavalry officer …rejects will not be received from contractors delivering at this depot…” In August, the army ordered Col. William Gamble to Chicago to inspect horses, and possibly to enjoy a well-earned rest. He remained until mid-December when an officer from the 1^st U.S. replaced him. Volunteer officers received similar orders, as evidenced in September when men from the 9^th New York and 3^rd Indiana were ordered back to Washington for similar duty.

But tasking officers, rather than civilians, with the duty did not eliminate fraud or the suspicion of fraud. Capt. Richard Lord, 1^st U.S., who had a bit of a reputation as a drinker and a brawler, was sent to Indianapolis, Indiana, for inspection duty in September. He was arrested 17 days later and tried for, among other things, having demanded ‘a bonus’ $1,500 from a contractor. Though acquitted of the more serious charge, other allegations to do with his drinking stuck.

On July 2, Meigs told a subordinate at a collection point in New York that all horses coming “from different stations are [to be] kept separate until after they are inspected so that each purchasing officer is held accountable for the horses he forwards, and for them alone.  Recent inspections have been made by a regularly appointed Board of Officers, and the results of such inspection have been even worse than those hitherto…”

On July 24, Meigs told a subordinate at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, “Of the 208 horses received here in one lot of the 21^st, 50 or 60 have already been sent to the hospital. Several are recognized by officers and inspectors as horses which have been repeatedly rejected when offered here by contractors. [Purchasing] such horses is a waste of money and the persons responsible are deserving of severe punishment. Do not allow payment for these horses and deal properly with whoever is responsible… More of the time and attention of the responsible officers should be given to the details of purchase of horses, a business involving much large expenditure. If left too much to subordinates, such frauds will ensue. Instruction will be given to charge the purchasing officers with the cost of the horses evidently unfit for service.”

In August, and prior to a corps wide inspection, General Pleasonton reminded his officers as to the criteria for grading horses as serviceable or unserviceable.

“Class 1 shall include those which are to be condemned as unfit for any use whatever in any branch of the service. Such cases must be acted upon by the inspectors without delay.

“Class 2 – Those now unfit for cavalry service and not likely to be efficient again for such service but which may be used for team or draught horses or for herding purposes. Horses of this class are to be turned into the QM.

“Class 3 – Those which are now unfit for service or nearly so, but which by timely care and treatment in depots will regain condition. Such horses are to be sent to such depots as shall be established for the army, to be replaced by an equal number of good animals from the depots. As soon as serviceable, the horses turned in will be eligible for reissue.

“Class 4 Serviceable – [with no specific guidelines].

Pleasonton then reminded his officers that “Additional special reports will be required exhibiting… how many miles their horses have traveled within the month, what character of service has been required of them and under what circumstances it has been rendered. What appears to have been their treatment, attention to shoeing, etc. What has been the quantity and character of the rations of forage issued to them and if there has been any deficiency of forage. Who is responsible therefore…”

In June, Lt. Henry Clark, who identified himself as Veterinary Surgeon, Gregg’s Division, wrote to General Stoneman, recommending that “a confiscated farm in some convenient locality be taken as a sort of convalescent camp for such horses and let there be room for about 2000. Let there be detailed invalid soldiers who are not fit for field service to attend the horses. Let also the necessary forage be furnished and I am confident that I would be able every ten days to turn out 200 horses fit again for the service.”

Clark then stated that “experience has shown that a horse cured of disease contracted by the exposure and the hardships of camp life is better suited for the service and more hardened than a horse just brought on from a farm. It] must be obvious that much could be saved to the Government if the plan suggested in the foregoing would be acted on.”

Though I have not yet confirmed Clark’s regimental affiliation, I believe he served with Company G, 1^st New Jersey. Like others before him, Clark’s recommendation hints at the large cavalry depot outside the capital that came online later in the year.

The spring and summer campaigns had interfered with any plans to appoint veterinary surgeons authorized by the Enrollment Act of March. On August 22, Col. A. J. Alexander, who had rejoined General Stoneman, now leading the Cavalry Bureau, advised Pleasonton, “I am directed …to …assemble a Board consisting of the most accomplished Veterinary Surgeons serving in your command for the purpose of drawing up a clear and concise paper setting forth the qualifications which they deem necessary for a [Regimental] Veterinary Surgeon, which paper he requests you to forward to this office.”

Some commanders, such as Col. Charles Smith, commanding Gregg’s 2^nd Brigade, complied quickly, nominating a trooper from the 16^th Pennsylvania. Others need a reminder, such as that sent to General Kilpatrick on September 5, telling him to “select… the most competent Veterinary Surgeon… and send his name to these HQ at once [emphasis in original].”

Colonel Alexander then told Pleasonton to “assemble a Board consisting of the most accomplished Veterinary Surgeons serving in your command, for the purpose of drawing up a clear and concise paper setting forth the qualifications which they deem necessary for a Regimental Veterinary Surgeon.” On September 8, Pleasonton named men from the 8^th Illinois, 3^rd West Virginia, 16^th and 18^th Pennsylvania and one from the quartermaster department to comprise the board and ordered them to meet two days later. I have not confirmed any of these men as serving as regimental veterinarians, in part because I have documents identifying one of them with three different last names and I cannot locate him under any of the three names. I am sure the men drew up the requested document, but I have not found a copy.

To be continued, but probably not for a few months.

Sources:

Unpublished documents from the National Archives

New England Farmer

---