What approximate percentage of sheriffs or marshals in post civil war nineteenth century owned a horse? I would include those who had a horse provided for them by the organization which sanctioned their office. And I would restrict the land area to that west of the Appalacians.
Here is one for you historians
- Thread starter Doc Hoy
- Start date
Shotgun693
New member
Since you don't make any kind of geographic limits I'm sure the number is very low. Why would the Marshall in New York or DC need a horse?
Andy Griffith
New member
About a third. I figure they borrowed them most of the time when they needed to go out of town.
bedbugbilly
New member
I'd be curious to know where you'e going with this Doc? 
Shotgun693
New member
Nearly every town had some kind of Livery or Livery service. Most people in a town didn't need to own a horse, they could rent one when it was needed. Shoot, very many Cowboys rode the Ranch's stock when they were working.
It has to do with economy
Bedbug.....
Actually it is just a curiosity about how much the local town was willing to spend on the peace officer....
I think that horses were expensive to the average person. They are not maintained for free. So the continuous expense of a horse for a sheriff who may not use it very often might be questionable.
I must emphasize that I know nothing at all about the west of 120 years ago.
I am in danger of citing a source which is monumentally questionable but my thought is that it is quite likely that the model suggested in Kostner's Open Range where the bulk of the economy of a town was controlled by one or very few folks. If it became financially important to these few folks to hire a sheriff, then they would be in control of what things he did and therefore what equipment he needed.
I am told that Kostner is fairly careful about historical accuracy and the movie Open Range is very credible. Dances with Wolves wasn't bad either.
Bedbug.....
Actually it is just a curiosity about how much the local town was willing to spend on the peace officer....
I think that horses were expensive to the average person. They are not maintained for free. So the continuous expense of a horse for a sheriff who may not use it very often might be questionable.
I must emphasize that I know nothing at all about the west of 120 years ago.
I am in danger of citing a source which is monumentally questionable but my thought is that it is quite likely that the model suggested in Kostner's Open Range where the bulk of the economy of a town was controlled by one or very few folks. If it became financially important to these few folks to hire a sheriff, then they would be in control of what things he did and therefore what equipment he needed.
I am told that Kostner is fairly careful about historical accuracy and the movie Open Range is very credible. Dances with Wolves wasn't bad either.
Fingers McGee
New member
I'd say less than 25% owned a horse or had one provided by the town. Since liveries were in abundance, if the town marshall needed one, it would be easy to borrow one if needed.
Shotgun693
New member
I should have read the whole deal.
As I understand it, per-1900 all US Marshals were political appointments and few did much if any field work themselves. The Deputies were the real working guys. At least in Texas, many Deputies carried several commissions. A Deputy US Marshal could also be a Texas Ranger, RR Special Agent and any other number of Law Officer types.
As I understand it, per-1900 all US Marshals were political appointments and few did much if any field work themselves. The Deputies were the real working guys. At least in Texas, many Deputies carried several commissions. A Deputy US Marshal could also be a Texas Ranger, RR Special Agent and any other number of Law Officer types.
I'm having a rough time thinking this one through. a sheriff, the town's top peace officer, has to have transportation throughout the county. Having a cop walking a beat made sense in chicago. having deputies on foot in towns out west made sense. beat cops in the big cities and localized security forces made sense. But, if a law enforcemnt officer had to travel more than a few blocks, he would have to have available transportation.
It's really hard to take current values and situation and compare it to the 1800s. Every cop on our force has his own car, and has several of his own on top of that. I'd expect that at least the top men of a department would have horses. probably nearly every other citizen in a lot of those towns walked.
It's really hard to take current values and situation and compare it to the 1800s. Every cop on our force has his own car, and has several of his own on top of that. I'd expect that at least the top men of a department would have horses. probably nearly every other citizen in a lot of those towns walked.
Doc Hoy said:
I'm confused about how the term "sheriff" is being defined within the context of the original question, is the sheriff local or county?
Nearly every sheriff seems to have county jurisdiction, according to the state constitutions in many cases they're the chief county law enforcement officer. And depending on the state also has coroner duties, county jail duties, helping to support the circuit courts, and also exercise the authority of posse comitatus, or power of the county to hunt down criminals.
In that context, then perhaps the local sheriff was more like a deputy serving under the county sheriff, and summoned the help of the county sheriff when needed. A local sheriff may not have enough jurisdiction or resources to chase a bad guy very far, only a county sheriff would, with the help of a judge issuing warrants or legal orders.
I would think that most all of the county sheriffs would have had horses at their disposal.
For sheriff info by state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs_in_the_United_States
Last edited:
Yes...Articap
Very useful.
I would add that as most of the midwestern states did not become states until the late 70s to mid 90s or even later, the rule of law prior to statehood might have been based upon authority that existed in a more de facto way. EG. territorial authority or even less.
And the mere existence of a constitution which delineated the office of sheriff, or constable, or whatever, does not automatically lead to the execution of the office in practice.
An indication of what am suggesting might be found if we knew how many people acted as bounty hunters in 1885 in comparison to the number of people who were quasi official law enforcement officers.
Was there actually a status known as "Wanted, Dead or Alive" and if so, what did it take to get on that list? What did it take to verify the identity of a person before the photo ID existed? How did we rationalize the merger of three functions; apprehension, judgement and executioner into one person.
Very useful.
I would add that as most of the midwestern states did not become states until the late 70s to mid 90s or even later, the rule of law prior to statehood might have been based upon authority that existed in a more de facto way. EG. territorial authority or even less.
And the mere existence of a constitution which delineated the office of sheriff, or constable, or whatever, does not automatically lead to the execution of the office in practice.
An indication of what am suggesting might be found if we knew how many people acted as bounty hunters in 1885 in comparison to the number of people who were quasi official law enforcement officers.
Was there actually a status known as "Wanted, Dead or Alive" and if so, what did it take to get on that list? What did it take to verify the identity of a person before the photo ID existed? How did we rationalize the merger of three functions; apprehension, judgement and executioner into one person.
To brian
Yep....
Correct. This is what I am hoping to avoid.
It would be easy to emerge from a session watching the cowboy shows and declare that every sheriff in every town had a horse, two revolvers, and a rifle. Wore a leather vest, and when he wanted to go somewhere simply walked out the front door and mounted the saddled horse that was tied perpetually to the hitching post. (No feed bag and no horse crap. Ever see a shot of an outhouse in "Gunsmoke" or "Have Gun Will Travel"?)
I am no historian (well, I could become a historian by reading but...) so I have to guess and my guess is that it was not that way universally.
Yep....
Correct. This is what I am hoping to avoid.
It would be easy to emerge from a session watching the cowboy shows and declare that every sheriff in every town had a horse, two revolvers, and a rifle. Wore a leather vest, and when he wanted to go somewhere simply walked out the front door and mounted the saddled horse that was tied perpetually to the hitching post. (No feed bag and no horse crap. Ever see a shot of an outhouse in "Gunsmoke" or "Have Gun Will Travel"?)
I am no historian (well, I could become a historian by reading but...) so I have to guess and my guess is that it was not that way universally.
Here's two interesting articles to glance through. The first describes how some U.S. territories are administered by territorial governments, and by the Dept. of the Interior and Indian Affairs.
United States territory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_territory
The second article has a lot of small maps (which can be clicked on to enlarge) showing in detail how each state territory developed over time leading up to it being admitted as a state. All of the maps are in chronological order which helps to place all of the states and remaining territories during the time period in question into a historical perspective. It's interesting just to gloss it over to see some of the development issues involving each state as they were split from other territories, along with the dates.
Territorial evolution of the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_United_States
United States territory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_territory
The second article has a lot of small maps (which can be clicked on to enlarge) showing in detail how each state territory developed over time leading up to it being admitted as a state. All of the maps are in chronological order which helps to place all of the states and remaining territories during the time period in question into a historical perspective. It's interesting just to gloss it over to see some of the development issues involving each state as they were split from other territories, along with the dates.
Territorial evolution of the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_United_States
In Idaho, prior to statehood in 1890, there were "Committees of Vigilance" in a few counties. One of them, in Payette County, was headed up by the future first governor of the state.
I don't know how things worked politically in other states between 1860 and 1890, but in Idaho, there tended to be more Southerners than Yankees in the mining towns and there was significant friction between them. Since Idaho became a territory during the Civil War, the appointed officials were all Northerners. But due to the significant Southern population of certain counties, elected officials tended to sympathize with the Confederate side.
What they ended up with was that the Sheriff and his deputies tended to not arrest those of their ilk and the judges tended to drop charges against their kind. Into the breach came the Committees of Vigilance.
That doesn't really answer the question of who owned horses. I know that the sheriffs in Idaho City tended to own them because the county is very large and they had to regularly travel between several towns. But my impression is that they had their own horses, not provided for by the county.
Incidentally, Idaho is littered with ghost towns (and living ones, too) that are named after places in the south. Atlanta and Dixie among others, and the Secesh (for "secession") river, as examples.
I don't know how things worked politically in other states between 1860 and 1890, but in Idaho, there tended to be more Southerners than Yankees in the mining towns and there was significant friction between them. Since Idaho became a territory during the Civil War, the appointed officials were all Northerners. But due to the significant Southern population of certain counties, elected officials tended to sympathize with the Confederate side.
What they ended up with was that the Sheriff and his deputies tended to not arrest those of their ilk and the judges tended to drop charges against their kind. Into the breach came the Committees of Vigilance.
That doesn't really answer the question of who owned horses. I know that the sheriffs in Idaho City tended to own them because the county is very large and they had to regularly travel between several towns. But my impression is that they had their own horses, not provided for by the county.
Incidentally, Idaho is littered with ghost towns (and living ones, too) that are named after places in the south. Atlanta and Dixie among others, and the Secesh (for "secession") river, as examples.
bedbugbilly
New member
Hey Doc - thanks for your reply to my inquiry - have to be honest, I never gave the horse question much thought. I've been looking in some references I have but haven't come up with anything. A good question though!
I can tell you (based on coming from a large family of "outlaws" - at least my Dad always called 'em that) - that outlaws ALWAYS owned a horse - that way they could get away from the lawman who probably didn't own one!?!?
Seriously though - I hope someone out there has a good reference that could answer this question. Those of us who grew up on Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Matt Dillon and The Cisco Kid are probably influenced in to thinking that EVERYONE owned a horse - and that couldn't possibly be true. Just thinking of my own hometown which is in Michigan (not the wild west) - I know for a fact that our local "Marshall" in the 1800s was not furnished a horse - the village was only a mile square and he walked everywhere he went. We did have a jail - built in the 1880's which was also a village office upstairs and it held a hand pulled "pumper" on the gound floor. We used it to house our fire grass rig in up until the 1970s when we built a new fire station and the old building was torn down. The jail cell was in the back of the downstairs and I ended up witht he door when the building was torn down - I kept it for historical reasons and after storing it for close to 30 years, I finally gave it to a cousin in lower Indiana who now uses it for a trellis in their garden.
I can tell you (based on coming from a large family of "outlaws" - at least my Dad always called 'em that
) - that outlaws ALWAYS owned a horse - that way they could get away from the lawman who probably didn't own one!?!? Seriously though - I hope someone out there has a good reference that could answer this question. Those of us who grew up on Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Matt Dillon and The Cisco Kid are probably influenced in to thinking that EVERYONE owned a horse - and that couldn't possibly be true. Just thinking of my own hometown which is in Michigan (not the wild west) - I know for a fact that our local "Marshall" in the 1800s was not furnished a horse - the village was only a mile square and he walked everywhere he went. We did have a jail - built in the 1880's which was also a village office upstairs and it held a hand pulled "pumper" on the gound floor. We used it to house our fire grass rig in up until the 1970s when we built a new fire station and the old building was torn down. The jail cell was in the back of the downstairs and I ended up witht he door when the building was torn down - I kept it for historical reasons and after storing it for close to 30 years, I finally gave it to a cousin in lower Indiana who now uses it for a trellis in their garden.