In the civil war, did the union or confederacy have a shortage of horses?

Question:like how the horses got killed and stuff, did both the north and south have a shortage or was it just one side? if just one side, which one?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: like how the horses got killed and stuff, did both the north and south have a shortage or was it just one side? if just one side, which one?

The union had fewer horses, but they didn't need to rely on horses as much as the south did. They had an expansive railroad system and canals. The south had very little track laid at the time of the war and what they did have the north ruined by heating the metal and wrapping it around trees ( it's hard to melt down and use again). The south had a steady supply of horses, cattle, and pigs from Texas and Florida. When the north completed its Anaconda Policy (win at Vicksburg) Texas was cut off from the rest of the south and was no longer able to supply horses.

The union had more of a shortage of horses but they controlled more of the rail system and cut off the supplies for the South. The south got decimated because they couldn't miove supplies and men.

Many of the Southern states were and still are the best horse raising sections of the country.At the start of the war,the South had plenty of good horses and the quality of the cavalry soldiers was beyond excellent.Bruce Catton wrote that Jeb Stuart's cavalry troopers could have taught circus riders tricks.The North had enough horses,but those furnished to the army at the start of the war were of poor quality.It took two years for the troops and horses of the Union cavalry to approach the good quality of the Southern cavalry.Toward the end of the war,the South began to suffer from a lack of horses.