Silent Allies: The Crucial Role of Animals in the Union Army

By Lorie Castro

The American Civil War ended over one hundred and fifty years ago, and it is still one of the most studied themes in America. Dozens of Civil War books sit on library and bookstore shelves. However, if one attempted to find a scholarly book that was written about animals in the Civil War, it would be a disappointment. There are very few books written on animals of the Civil War, even though they played a crucial role in the war. North and South used animals as military machines, to haul artillery and supplies, and as transportation. In these roles, horses and mules died in droves. An early estimation suggests that up to two million horses served in the war.[1] However, a modern study suggests that three million horses and mules served, and about 1.5 million horses died in service.[2] Additionally, animals served the war as mascots and companion animals. It was impossible to wage the Civil War without animals and impossible to win without them.

This study examines the role of animals in the Union Army. Their many contributions and sacrifices are often overlooked. From a military and morale perspective, their role was vital. Historian Earl J. Hess writes, “The ability of the Union and Confederacy to horse its armies represented a key military factor that weighed heavily in deciding battlefield defeat or victory.”[3] The use of a military lens will evaluate their military importance and contributions. The use of a cultural lens will analyze how animals, of all kinds, helped keep morale up for entire regiments and individual soldiers. During the American Civil War, animals played a crucial role in warfare and companionship that contributed to a Union victory.

Modern scholars are beginning to take notice of the importance of animals in the Civil War. Contemporary cultural and animal studies have evaluated animals and their roles, revealing their significant impact on Civil War history. Understanding their complex and often overlooked role in the Union victory elevates them to a more deserving place in history. Animals worked and suffered alongside their human handlers, proving they were crucial in preserving the Union. Analyzing animals lends to a more nuanced understanding of the war. Animal Studies and cultural studies have been brought to the forefront with the modern focus on the ethical treatment of animals. Scholars recognize that animals have an important place in history that has yet to be fully analyzed. There is still much to learn in this growing field.

However, there are gaps in current research. The research is still broad; however, as studies continue, this may change. Narrowing the study to a more regional one, as the Civil War differed significantly among regions, would be valuable. For example, a focus solely on Sherman’s March might yield different results than a study focused strictly on the Peninsula Campaign. Another interesting example might be a comparison of the Western and Eastern theatre or North and South. There is the opportunity for examination by military branch as well. No doubt, these gaps will be addressed in future studies. This paper will focus on the Union army.

Significant studies on animals in the Civil War have only begun to emerge. There is only a small number of focused studies on the topic. Focused sources, such as Earl J. Hess’ Animal Histories of the Civil War Era, will prove invaluable for this study. Often, information needs to be drawn from other sources such as journal articles, books on other topics, period journals, and letters. However, relevant information can be pieced together from interdisciplinary studies to create a more unified sense of understanding of the importance of animals to the U. S. Army. For example, animals had an enormous impact on the success of Sherman’s March and significantly contributed to the Union victory.

Besides Earl J. Hess’s book, another significant source is Judkin Browning and Timothy Silver’s book An Environmental History of the Civil War. With chapters on animals and food, it is an essential source. Mary Sacks wrote an article, “They are Truly Marvelous Cats: The Importance of Companion Animals to U.S. Soldiers,” which is a fascinating look at companion animals and their worth. These sources are significant because they give insight into the use of animals during the war and the military and personal importance they held. Some interdisciplinary journal pieces have been helpful for this study. For example, in 2013, Gervase Williams wrote an article called “Writing Horses into American History.” Williams’ environmental and cultural work is a valuable study that advocates for the inclusion of horses in history. Steven Johnson uses a military lens to examine animals in war for his article, “Animals in War: Commemoration, Patriotism, Death.” He focuses mainly on World War II and Vietnam; however, he champions the recognition of animals in military history. A reference book that is a valuable resource is Civil War Animal Heroes: Mascots, Pets and War Horses by Charles Worman. This book chronicles dozens of animals and gives their war stories in context. Nonetheless, few scholarly works relate directly to this topic.

Animals in the Civil War can be best studied with a military and cultural framework. Important insights can be drawn from the use of these lenses. The military lens has typically examined war and battles. However, modern historians also use the lens to analyze strategies, execution and tactics, survey choices and decisions made by leaders, civilian and animal displacement, examine logistics, and ethical considerations. This study focuses on these aspects with the use of a military lens. The military lens will highlight how the Union Army could not operate without animals. The necessity of animals in the Union Army is prevalent in various ways. In this study, a cultural lens will also be applied, examining the human-animal relationship during wartime and how it affected the troops morale. It will shed a broader light on how animals were indispensable to soldier morale. A cultural lens helps understand animal’s role in maintaining the emotional well-being of thousands of soldiers amid war.[4]

The historiography of animals in the Civil War is relatively recent and has not been extensively explored. Early histories rarely mention the role of animals or their significant contribution. Most early Civil War animal histories were not scholarly and only highlighted heroic animals, such as General’s horses, or they consisted of interdisciplinary studies that touched on different topics. Nonetheless, Hess believes that the “study of animals in the Civil War is on the verge of blossoming.”[5] 

While, historically, some people have shown concern for animals, it has not been a nationwide consensus or priority. However, during the Civil War, Americans witnessed a level of unimaginable animal suffering and unnecessary death. This battlefield gore, which was usually reserved for those in war, suddenly became visible to civilians. Several photographers documented the deaths of horses and the battlefield carnage. The photography allowed the public to see the horrific and widespread death of both men and animals. Civil War Photographer Timothy Sullivan, and one-time chief photographer for the United States Treasury, captured an image called Dead Horses of Bigelow’s (9th Massachusetts) Battery that reveals the death of multiple horses at Gettysburg. This tragic photo shows that animals played a vital role in warfare and paid with their lives. The Gettysburg victory belonged to both men and animals. Sullivan’s photos shocked the country.

Hundreds of thousands of horses and mules served the Union army. Animals had no laws to protect them during the war. In 1866 the first anti-cruelty law to protect animals was enacted, prompted perhaps by the large-scale animal death and destruction of the Civil War. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) was also created that year. One hundred years later, in 1966, The Animal Welfare Act was the first federal law to ensure the humane treatment of animals.

The book, Animal Liberation by Peter Singer in 1975 highlighted the need for animal rights. It was not until the 1980s and 1990s that the animal rights movement gained momentum. In 1980, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) was founded. They have since grown worldwide and are proactive advocates for animals. The animal rights movements of the ‘80s and ‘90s helped usher in using cultural and animal studies lenses. With the growing concern and consideration for animals, historians began to use the cultural lens and animal studies framework to analyze animals and their role in important events in history. The animal studies lens focuses on how animals were exploited. Cultural frameworks have been applied to analyze human-animal relationships. An environmental lens has been a popular modern lens used to evaluate animals in their ecosystem.

One of the first environmental studies about the Civil War was done by Professor Lisa Brady. Her 2012 book, War Upon the Land: Military Strategy and the Transformation of Southern Landscapes During the American Civil War, laid the groundwork for future environmental studies. With an environmental lens, she evaluated the toll on the environment and how the war devastated agriculture and wilderness. Her study was a precursor to other studies, including Judkin Browning and Timothy Silver’s. As interdisciplinary studies grow, the historiography will reflect that.

One of the most essential books in the historiography of Animals in the Civil War is the 2020 book, An Environmental History of the Civil War, by Military History Professor Judkin Browning and Environmental History Professor Timothy Silver. Their collaborative book has quickly become a landmark study. Influenced by Brady’s earlier environmental work, Historian Earl Hess wrote that Browning and Silver’s book was “The latest and so far best study.”[6] Using an environmental and military lens, Browning and Silver argue that the Civil War marked an unprecedented ecological event that altered the landscape and environment, affecting people and animals.[7] Their work is credible and their chapters on food and animals are relevant for this thesis. They utilized scores of primary and secondary sources for their analysis, including journals, diaries, official papers, and period photographs. The movement to study the environment began to unfold in 1970 after the creation of Earth Day and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since then, interest in environmental studies has progressed. Before Brady’s work, no thorough environmental study on the Civil War had been undertaken.

Browning and Silver wrote their book after seeing a gap in the literature and a need for a finely concentrated study that included both the environment and animals. The insight Browning and Silver gained from the environmental lens reveals a more acute understanding of the army’s dependence on animals, the depletion and replenishing of animals, and how having animals could help with logistics. This book has since been referenced by numerous other historians and sparked interest in both environmental studies and animal studies of the Civil War, paving the way for further analysis. Their book is useful for this study because it is rich with information that can be analyzed with both a military and cultural lens, contributing to a comparative examination of how animals helped the Union win the war.

With interest in Civil War animals becoming more popular, in 2021, Professor Marcy S. Sacks wrote the notable article, “They are Truly Marvelous Cats: The Importance of Companion Animals to U.S. Soldiers.” This article uses a cultural lens and analyzes the unique human-animal relationship. Her research uses numerous primary and secondary sources in her research, including journals, photos, diaries, letters, and sketchbooks. One 1865 Civil War photo used in her study depicts a black and white terrier dog named “Jack,” wearing a detailed shiny collar, hand-made by a soldier. Jack was the beloved mascot of the 102nd Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. The bottom of the photo lists the battles in which he was present. It also notes that Jack was taken prisoner at Salem Church, paroled, and returned.[8] Jack was treated as a member of the regiment in every way. A photo like this helps give insight into the human-animal attachments that were made during the war. Sacks argues that animals were vital to the emotional health of traumatized soldiers.[9] Insights gained from Sacks’s article are numerous. It is worthwhile to study the depth to which animals soothed and comforted soldiers in war, how animals helped them cope with grief and homesickness, and how animals helped stave off boredom. Sacks demonstrates that animals kept soldiers mentally healthy and morale high, keeping soldiers mentally fit for service. This supports the argument that animals helped secure a Union victory. Sacks’s study highlights that a variety of domestic animals, such as dogs, cats, pigs, and horses, and wild animals, such as rats, rabbits, and squirrels, had the potential to keep soldier’s spirits high, encouraging them to do their duty despite the trauma they had experienced. Her research consists of numerous diaries, journals, and regimental histories and is a fascinating look at the value of companion animals during the war.

In 2022 Professor Earl J. Hess wrote the book Animal Histories of the Civil War with a military and cultural lens. Hess is an authoritative and credible scholar who has been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. Primary sources such as books, letters, journals, and government reports are combined with an exhaustive interdisciplinary analysis of secondary sources, both recent and archival pieces, to create a rich and informative book. He argues that animals shaped the Civil War in war, transportation, food, and as companions and cannot be separated from their soldier comrades. This partnership has not been so thoroughly studied before. His use of social and cultural lenses examines the human-animal relationship and analyzes their experience in the military in their various roles. Profound insight can be gained from Hess’ critical study. Understanding animal’s roles and partnership with soldiers in the war gives scholars a new perspective. It unveils new information, giving depth and complexity to the relationship between soldiers and animals. Furthermore, it gives due diligence to the role of animals and their contributions, an area that has been overlooked.

Over the years, history has acknowledged the contributions of soldiers to the Union victory. Generals such as Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman have etched a mark in the history books. President Abraham Lincoln gave his life for the cause, becoming a martyr. However, what of the animals who helped contribute to the Union victory? At best, they have been a mere mention in the history books. More often, they were not referenced at all; animals, it would seem, were not even present in the war based on some accounts. However, that is not a truthful history. Animals were vital, and the Union could not have achieved victory without them. Modern historians are attempting to give a voice to animals. They are acknowledging their impact on the war. Employing military and cultural lenses allows for an analysis of animals’ contributions and a better understanding of their crucial role and how they helped secure a Union victory.

Animals were a military necessity. A utilitarian look at their role is crucial to understanding the war. The U.S. army could not conduct the business of war without animals, mainly horses, mules, and oxen, but also livestock animals such as cows, pigs, and chickens. Browing and Silver, in their book, An Environmental History of the Civil War, wrote that after soldiers, horses and mules were the “most important sources of energy on any Civil War battlefield.”[10] The Union army spent a significant amount of money obtaining horses and mules, a conservative estimate is about $150 million, underscoring their worth to the cause.[11] The government did not own a fleet of horses or mules; they had to procure them from civilians. Once in the service of the government, horses and mules were quickly employed as machinery and transportation. They were expected to move artillery, pull wagons and ambulances, move men, and stay cool during battle. Like soldiers, they had to be readied for service and trained. This process was quick, and it did not adequately prepare the animal for their role in the military. Some equines were prone to spooking and running at the sounds of battle, but most became as battle-hardened as the men they served with.

In the South, many soldiers brought their own horses with them to war. Southern horses were often considered superior to those of the North, especially the cavalry horses. In contrast, in the North, soldiers were issued their animals. If they weren’t killed on the battlefield, they may have been overworked, abandoned, or killed when they became lame or exhausted. For example, Noah Andre Trudeau’s book Southern Storm, Sherman’s March to the Sea provides valuable insight. He gives various examples of Sherman’s troops committing brutal animal killings and executions, payment for their exhaustive service marching through Georgia. Replacing them with the captured or confiscated superior Southern horses became commonplace towards the end of the war. Trudeau writes that during Sherman’s March, spent horses and mules were frequently dispatched and replaced, used and then slaughtered. Trudeau writes of an Ohio soldier’s experience of confiscating Rebel horses and mules to replace their “poorest,” who were shot to make way for the replacements.[12] This reinforces the notion that horses and mules were military equipment, valuable only when in top working order, and disposable when they were not. Though the army took efforts at maintaining their health, some units more than others, a conservative estimate of 1,200,000 horses and mules died in service.[13] With horses and mules replaced often, it ensured that only the finest working animals were in service to serve. Having healthy and robust animals was essential for the Union Army to obtain a victory.

Militarily, it was strategic to capture and use Southern horses and mules. Without them, the Confederate army was incapacitated. Confiscated Rebel horses replaced weak Union horses, strengthening the Northern force, while simultaneously weakening the Confederacy’s. Without adequate horses, the Confederate artillerymen did not have enough horses to pull cannon, a necessity of war, and were forced to serve as infantrymen.[14] Additionally, Confederate cavalry, ambulances, and scouting were impacted. Thus, capturing Southern horses became a strategic element in wartime to secure a victory.

Besides being representations of rank and authority for officers, having good horses in the cavalry was imperative for war.[15] When Sherman picked Judson Kilpatrick as his cavalry officer to accompany him on his March, he made sure that Kilpatrick had been forwarded the best horses for the job.[16] Horses were efficient for quick communication. They were valuable for their ability to do reconnaissance and scouting; in this role, horses were beneficial for their ability to move close to enemy lines where a soldier could gather intelligence. This was vital for a commander as intel enables him to plan both offensive and defensive strategies. Horses also allowed the army to be fast and maneuverable. Horses were able to move people and supplies quicker than soldiers on foot. They also facilitate mobile military strategies or flanking maneuvers. The Battle of Yellow Tavern is an important example of how the cavalry horses made considerable contributions to the war. Union General Phillip Sheridan, after destroying twenty miles of railroad tracks and confiscating weeks of rations for the Confederacy, engaged in a battle that devastated the South.[17] With 10,000 horses and calvary men, Sheridan’s troops split Southern General J.E.B. Stuart’s troops and mortally wounded the commander. The loss of General Stuart weakened the Confederacy significantly and helped contribute to a Union victory. Without their fleet of fine horses, this victory would not have been possible.

Besides horses, other animals were also essential military pieces to a Union victory. Pigs and hogs were especially vital to the Union victory as both a source of food and military strategy. As early as 1861, the Battle of Fort Sumter revealed the imperative need for meat for the Confederacy; they knew that they would find it challenging to procure meat if crucial supply lines were interrupted.[18] In the North, the military was able to exploit this vulnerability. Northern military strategists knew that hogs, “with their ability to turn almost anything in nature into meat, occupied an important niche in the southern food system.”[19] The hog was the preferred choice of food because of its ability to convert food into meat rapidly, and because they were not picky eaters.[20] They were omnivores and would forage anything from vegetation to meat. Additionally, the entire hog could be used for consumption. Bacon or salt pork, however, was the standard in the soldier’s diet. By procuring vital southern meat packing plants in Kentucky and Tennessee early in the war, the Union Army weakened the Confederacy by confiscating and controlling their main supply lines of meat. Out of desperation, the Confederacy devised military strategies to acquire hogs. However, they were unsuccessful. The Union was able to use the hog to feed their army while inflicting significant injury and deprivation upon their rebel enemies.

Later, the Union victory in Vicksburg cut off Texas from supplying cattle to the Confederacy. This added further strain to the Confederacy’s already weakened food supply. They were of additional importance to achieving a Union victory. Cattle were not only used as food for the Union soldiers, but the hides were of vital importance to the military. Cowhide was used in shoes, saddles, bridles, and reins.[21] The Union’s success at cutting off cattle supply lines to the Confederacy further hurt the South, and their soldiers became notoriously famished as the war went on. The U.S. had strategically deprived the enemy of their food, a soldier’s source of energy and health.

Dogs were used in war as well. They often went to war with owners or were picked up along the march. They were often used to guard prisons, forts, and camps.[22] They were used as alert dogs to notify them if the enemy was nearby. Some were trained as tracking dogs and could successfully track an escaped prisoner or an enemy that got too close. During the Peninsula Campaign of 1862, Newfoundland dogs were used as advance pickets, serving the role as soldier. Dogs were useful at camp as well. They would help control the vermin that plagued the camp. Carlo, the brindle Newfoundland of the 9th New York Infantry, was adept at hunting rats. Carlo was also used on guard duty, where he would alert if an enemy or animal approached the camp. Veteran Rush Hawkins remembers that Carlo’s greatest military service was his performance as a member of the guard.[23]  Dogs were enlisted into war with the sole reason of saving the lives of humans.[24] 

Their role as animals in the army was vital. However, animals are complex, just as humans are. This complexity allowed animals to play an essential role in the mental health of soldiers. Animals of all types provided companionship to stave the loneliness many felt, as well as providing entertainment from the camp boredom. In a brutal war where men often saw death, “Animals resurrected the humanity of men who had to alienate themselves from fundamental elements of their moral and religious codes and confirmed humanity for anxious observers.”[25] For the soldiers, simply having animals as mascots, in camp as pets, or for entertainment helped them navigate the homesickness, malnutrition, extreme weather, boredom, fear, and sickness they often faced.[26] Furthermore, the scientific benefits of touching and petting animals is significant. Studies show that it can reduce anger, tension, and anxiety by decreasing stress levels.[27] Animals brought happiness and joy to troops and maintained the mental health of soldiers who faced constant stress.

Pets were abundant in the Union Army. Dogs, who have always been known as man’s best friend, were the most common pets. While dogs were used strategically in the capacity of saving human lives, they also served the role of a companion. Dogs brought happiness to soldiers just by their presence. Officer George Gordon wrote in his Civil War diary that the return of their “faithful staff-dog filled headquarters with unusual happiness,” and “she cheered and relieved more gloomy hours than could many a so-called nobler animal.”[28] Newfoundland Carlo and other dogs of the 9th New York, were also a source of happiness among their regiment. Each company of men would attend the parade ground with “its particular family of canine companions.” Rush’s use of the word “family” is indicative of how much animals meant to them.

Scholar Steven Johnson wrote that “dogs make us better-more fully human.”[29] Pets of any kind, allowed soldiers to feel human again. After killing and witnessing death, animals gave soldiers “a lifeline back to the essence of themselves as men.”[30] Many soldiers felt that animals helped them maintain resilience during the war. One officer wrote that soldiers adopted a variety of camp pets, including baby goats, raccoons, donkeys, and of course, dogs and cats adding that “these pets are watched, fed, protected, and carried along with a faithfulness and affection which constantly suggest the most interesting psychological queries.”[31] Animals gave soldiers a way to nurture and love during a period when they were expected to kill. This animal companionship was imperative to keeping soldiers mentally healthy for service. They made the war trauma bearable. Pets boost morale by providing affection, a sense of purpose, and distractions from combat, and keeping soldiers connected to their humanity.[32] Having pets allowed for companionship while providing the benefits of a therapy animal. Pets were an important contribution to a Union victory because they kept morale high and nostalgia at bay.

Mascots had the power to encourage and unite troops. One of the most famous mascots of the Civil War was “Old Abe,” the bald eagle mascot from the 8th Wisconsin Infantry. Joseph Osgood Barrett, chaplain for the regiment, wrote of the eagle, “With this grand living emblem of victory before them, it is no wonder that the soldiers of the Eight regiment were invincible.”[33] The presence of the eagle on his hand-crafted perch flapping and screaming with wild enthusiasm during battle always encouraged the troops forward.[34] One rebel soldier was inspired to desert the Confederate Army after seeing the war eagle flying over the 8th Wisconsin, saying, “all my old love of American freedom and loyalty returned.”[35] Old Abe was more than a mascot, he was a symbol of liberty and a living emblem of the principles of the founding fathers. He was inspiration for the 8th Wisconsin and all who came in contact with him. A bronze statue of Old Abe now sits atop the 122-foot-tall Wisconsin State Memorial at the Vicksburg Military Park in Mississippi, underscoring his importance to the troops.

Wildlife had a way of helping the soldiers get through their monotony. One Ohio soldier recalled visits from a lizard he described as beautiful and tame that would sit on the camp stool and visit regularly.[36] Other unusual companions are recorded. Baby mice became pets. One soldier wrote home describing three mice as pets. He and a friend made a cage from scrap materials and nursed three newborn mice to health with sponges. The mice quickly earned their affection and slept with the men, ate scraps, and had their protection.[37]   Many soldiers took great pains to keep their animals safe. Soldiers benefitted from nurturing animals, whether wild or domestic, the act kept them grounded in humanity and compassion.

Maintaining humanity was difficult during war; however, animals gave soldiers the outlet needed for this. The Ninety-Sixth Ohio regiment had a pet chicken named “Dick,” nicknamed “his imperial chickenship.” that not only entertained the men but “could be called and petted like a dog.”[38] Dick helped the soldiers maintain their morale and humanity. Statistically, soldiers in the best health and with high morale used self-care, including communicating with loved ones.[39] Animals provided an outlet for their love and affection while away from home. Veteran J. T. Woods wrote, “The fact is, that, without other convenient object on which to bestow their tenderness of soul, they lavished it on Dick.”[40] By lavishing their pets, they were performing acts of self-care that helped to keep them fit for battle.

Many soldiers bonded with horses, as they had often risked their lives together. Union soldier Lewis Sykes treated his horses as friends and cared for them as thoughtfully as he would have done for any human.[41] Other soldiers felt genuine sadness if their horse was wounded or killed, and many were known to cry over their loss. Trudeau writes of an Ohio soldier whose spent horse was chosen to be dispatched by clubbing. It did not immediately die, and despite its wounds, it traveled several miles with a broken skull before finally expiring. His owner mourned his death and eulogized him as a hero.[42] To many, the death of their horse partner left them sorrowful. Many men cried when their horses were wounded or killed in battle.[43] Sadness aside, such strong emotional responses were the result of a heart-felt connection with the animal. Men and their horses often formed bonded relationships of love and affection and “Many horses returned the affection and loyalty.”[44] In his diary, soldier Lawrence Van Alstyne recalled an incident involving his captain’s horse. After being taken prisoner, they were ushered out to a boat. When crossing the gangplank, the captains horse tried to follow its master across and would have succeeded if the horse had not been driven away.[45] Van Alstyne sadly recalled, “I had never seen so much affection shown by a horse.”[46] Soldiers with strong bonds to their horses would have experienced less stress and anxiety as just the act of grooming alone can foster physical well-being.[47] 

With the use of a military lens, the crucial strategic and tactical importance of animals in the Civil War and how they contributed to the Union’s victory is paramount. They were vital tools of war and served in many different capacities. The Union army waged a successful war thanks to animals who served in the ranks or fed the troops. Their importance cannot be understated. With the use of a cultural lens, the human-animal bond is plain. The revered companionship and happiness animals brought to the Union soldiers, either as a mascot, pet, or wild creature, lifted the spirits and morale of the troops giving them the mental strength to keep fighting. With morale high and good mental health, the Union troops were primed for success.

The history of animals in the Civil War is complex, and the gaps in the historiography are significant. Animals were more than warriors and companions; sometimes, they were both. Animals were both horribly treated and incredibly loved. Evidence of this can be found in journals and diaries, but as well as in memorials. In Gettysburg National Park in Pennsylvania there are monuments for two mascots and several horses, including General Meade on his favorite horse “Old Baldy,” and “Sallie” the dog. Including animals in the monuments are a public declaration of love, respect, and acknowledgement of their value to the Union victory.

This study combines the dual purposes of animals in the Civil War: the military machine and the supportive companion. As it has been shown, animals played both roles victoriously. This study brings to light the complexities of their role and multifaceted value to the Union.  Animals played a crucial role in warfare and companionship that helped secure a Union victory. Recognition for their service is long overdue.  

Copyright © 2025 by Lorie D. Castro

All Rights Reserved

[1] John Sickles, “Civil War Horses,” Military Images 24, no. 3 (November/December), 7, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44034802.

[2] Heroes with Hooves,” National Park Service, accessed August 30, 2024, https://www.nps.gov/stri/cw-horses-and-mule.htm.

[3] Earl J, Hess, Animal Histories of the Civil War Era (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2022), 46.

[4] Marcy S. Sacks, “They are Truly Marvelous Cats: The Importance of Companion Animals to US Soldiers.” Journal of the Civil War Era 11, no. 2 (June, 2021), 249, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27088821.

[5] Earl J, Hess, Animal Histories of the Civil War Era, 6,17.

[6] Earl J, Hess, Animal Histories of the Civil War Era,

[7] Judkin Browning and Timothy Silver, An Environmental History of the Civil War (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2020), 131.

[8] “Dog ‘Jack,’ attached to the 102d Regiment Pennsylvania Vols. Was in the following battles: Siege of Yorktown; Battle of Williamsburg; Fair Oaks; Battle of the Pickets; Malvern Hill (wounded); First and Second Fredericksburg; captured at Salem Church, was exchanged and returned / / R.W. Addis, photographer, 308 Penna. Avenue, Washington, D.C.” Library of Congress, accessed September 12, 2024. https://www.loc.gov/resource/ppmsca.54347/.

[9] Marcy S. Sacks, “They are Truly Marvelous Cats: The Importance of Companion Animals to US Soldiers,” 249, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27088821.

[10] Earl J, Hess, Animal Histories of the Civil War Era, 105.

[11] Earl J, Hess, Animal Histories of the Civil War Era, 48.

[12] Noah Andre Trudeau, Southern Storm: Sherman’s March to the Sea (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2008), 114.

[13] Gervase Phillips, “Writing Horses into American Civil War History,” War in History 20, no. 2 (April, 2013), 167. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26098264.  

[14] Noah Andre Trudeau, Southern Storm: Sherman’s March to the Sea, 166.

[15] Dane DiFebo, “Old Baldy: A Horse’s Tale,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 135, no. 4 (October, 2011) 549, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5215/pennmaghistbio.135.4.0549.

[16] Noah Andre Trudeau, Southern Storm: Sherman’s March to the Sea, 50.

[17] James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 728.

[18] Judkin Browning and Timothy Silver, An Environmental History of the Civil War, 123.

[19] Judkin Browning and Timothy Silver, An Environmental History of the Civil War, 124.

[20] Judkin Browning and Timothy Silver, An Environmental History of the Civil War, 123.

[21] Judkin Browning and Timothy Silver, An Environmental History of the Civil War, 131.

[22] Earl J, Hess, Animal Histories of the Civil War Era, 172.

[23] Christopher Hawkins Rush, Better Than Men (New York: H.W. Bouton, 1896), 116, https://archive.org/details/betterthanmen00hawk/page/116/mode/2up.

[24] Steven Johnson, “Animals in War: Commemoration, Patriotism, Death,” Political Research Quarterly 65. No. 2 (June, 2012) 361, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41635239.

[25] Marcy S. Sacks, “They are Truly Marvelous Cats: The Importance of Companion Animals to US Soldiers,” 226, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27088821.

[26] Marcy S. Sacks, “They are Truly Marvelous Cats: The Importance of Companion Animals to US Soldiers,” 228, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27088821.

[27] Melinda Stanley-Hermans and Julie Miller, “Animal Assisted Therapy,” The American Journal of Nursing 102, no.10 (October, 2002), 74, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3522980.

[28] George H. Gordon, A War Diary of Events in the War of the Great Rebellion, 1863-1865 (Boston: J.R. Osgood and Co., 1882), 61, https://archive.org/details/wardiaryevents00gordrich/page/60/mode/2up?q=dog.

[29] Steven Johnson, “Animals in War: Commemoration, Patriotism, Death,” Political Research Quarterly 65. No. 2 (June, 2012) 362, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41635239.

[30] Marcy S. Sacks, “They are Truly Marvelous Cats: The Importance of Companion Animals to US Soldiers,” 249, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27088821.

[31] George Ward Nichols, The Story of the Great March: From the Diary of a Staff Officer (Michigan: Harper & Brothers, 1865), 76. https://archive.org/details/storygreatmarch00nichgoog/page/n80/mode/1up.

[32] Marcy S. Sacks, “They are Truly Marvelous Cats: The Importance of Companion Animals to US Soldiers,” 230, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27088821.

[33] Joseph Osgood Barrett, History of “Old Abe,”: The Live War Eagle of the Eight Regiment Wisconsin Volunteers, (Chicago: Alfred L Sewell, 1865), 46. https://archive.org/details/historyofoldabel00barr/page/46/mode/1up.

[34] Joseph Osgood Barrett, History of “Old Abe,”: The Live War Eagle of the Eight Regiment Wisconsin Volunteers, 46, https://archive.org/details/historyofoldabel00barr/page/46/mode/1up.

[35] Joseph Osgood Barrett, History of “Old Abe,”: The Live War Eagle of the Eight Regiment Wisconsin Volunteers, 47, https://archive.org/details/historyofoldabel00barr/page/46/mode/1up.

[36] Earl J, Hess, Animal Histories of the Civil War Era, 104.

[37] Marcy S. Sacks, “They are Truly Marvelous Cats: The Importance of Companion Animals to US Soldiers,” 242, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27088821.

[38] J. T. Woods, Services of the Ninety-Sixth Ohio Volunteers, (Toledo: Blade Print and Paper Co., 1874), 155. https://archive.org/details/servicesninetys00woodgoog/page/n174/mode/1up.

[39] Kathryn S. Meier, “No Place for the Sick: Nature’s War on Civil War Soldier Mental and Physical Health in the 1862 Peninsula and Shenandoah Valley Campaigns,” Journal of the Civil War Era 1, no. 2 (June, 2011), 177, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26070113.

[40] J. T. Woods, Services of the Ninety-Sixth Ohio Volunteers, 155. https://archive.org/details/servicesninetys00woodgoog/page/n174/mode/1up.

[41] Earl J, Hess, Animal Histories of the Civil War Era, 73.

[42]Noah Andre Trudeau, Southern Storm: Sherman’s March to the Sea, 356.

[43] Earl J, Hess, Animal Histories of the Civil War Era, 73.

[44] Earl J, Hess, Animal Histories of the Civil War Era, 79.

[45] Lawrence Van Alstyne, Diary of an Enlisted Man (Connecticut: The Tuttle, Morehouse &* Taylor Company, 1910), 302, https://archive.org/details/diaryofenlistedm00vana/page/n8/mode/1up.

[46] Lawrence Van Alstyne, Diary of an Enlisted Man, 302, https://archive.org/details/diaryofenlistedm00vana/page/n8/mode/1up.

[47] Gervase Phillips, “Writing Horses into American Civil War History,” War in History, 166. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26098264.