If you were in a mid-sized American city — e.g., Boston or Washington, D.C. — in, say, 1875, you would see people riding in horse-drawn carriages. You would see commercial wagons pulled by horses (and maybe donkeys as well?) But would you see anyone sitting in a saddle on a horse’s back?
I can’t think why not. But I also can’t remember seeing any, other than the occasional mounted policeman, in old photos. Was riding on horseback a rural thing, or did I just miss it?
Washington, DC still has mounted police to this day. Not too long ago, they were actually deployed in action to break up Occupy DC.
If you lived in the city proper, as opposed to the outskirts of town, the need to ride a horse from point A to point B was certainly less. Stores and schools etc. were sometimes just blocks away, so walking was always an option. There were carriages to take you where you wanted to go, and I believe even rudimentary public transportation in some cases, although that may have been a little later.
Living in the country meant that getting some place was harder and everything was farther apart. You also had room for horses in the country and most farms probably had a carriage for getting around. In the city, not so much.
Proper city dwellers would likely rent a horse from the local livery business when needed. Owning a horse that could be used for riding, getting around would requiring having the means/room for a barn/stable on their own property. Guessing that would likely be reserved for people of solidly middle class and above.
Agree with the above and add if you are from the country and heading into the city, its probably for business and not just a pleasure trip. You will need a wagon to haul in what you are selling and/or carry back what you are buying. If it was a more casual trip, the entire family would be going so the wagon is needed again.
You might find this interesting (pdf alert)
It seems that very few city people would use a horse for transport, unless it was pulling a carriage. Owning a horse in the city was out of the question and using one to go shopping or to visit someone was simply impractical. Riding a horse that was easily frightened and might slip on slippery pavements took a great deal more skill than driving a car. If you were wealthy you had a carriage (othen hired) or took a cab. If not, you caught an omnibus.
I mostly agree with what’s already been said. Owning a horse in a city was expensive. You had to house it, feed it, care for it. Doing all that without getting any money back was prohibitive. I’d limit that to the upper classes, not the middle classes.
Horses were work animals, for the most part. They were used to haul goods and people, and therefore all sizable cities developed various modes of pay-for-transit systems very early. By 1875 you’d see horse-drawn cabs, streetcars, and omnibuses. People who could afford horses would travel in carriages, far more comfortably than on horseback. And there is the practical side. What do you do with you horse when you got to your destination? You couldn’t tie the reins to the hitching post outside the saloon, I mean the Capitol building. The horse has to go somewhere. The modern equivalent would be a segway. Sure you can ride one to the supermarket. But you can’t take it inside.
The upper classes would certainly know how to ride horses, though. Every city had equestrian trails and people would also ride when they went to their summer homes. Horsemanship was a prized trait. I wouldn’t be surprised if young men rose their horses from one home to another, where it could be taken care of while they visited. There might be some arrangements like that in the business districts as well. But they would be a small percentage of total travel.
(Not quite what the the OP asks about in 1875, but a generation later, in 1906: )
Here’s a fascinating movie clip of a street scene in San Fransisco. The street is full of cars, trams, and horse-drawn carriages, and pedestrians. There is only one brief glimpse (at 11:25) of a man riding a horse.
The amazing thing is the chaos–there appear to be very few traffic rules. There are a couple dozen near-misses of accidents with serious injuries, and nobody seems to be concerned.
Remember, too, that it wasn’t just people who were moved by horses – freight was, too (even with railroads, you had to get goods from the station to the customer). Wagons were common, and often they were just left behind after a large delivery. Abandoned wagons* were a problem in most large cities, blocking the streets and making street cleaning impossible (people would often toss garbage under the wagons).
*I believe they’d leave the wagon and take the horses back to the stable. If they needed a wagon again, they’d take horses to the one the abandoned.
Lincoln used to spend a lot of time at what today is the Old Soldier’s Home, especailly in the summer when it got hot. The location of the place is on a hill overlooking the Capitol and gets a nice breeze. When accompanied by Mrs. L, they’d go up and back by carriage, but quite often he would go by himself on horseback --usually with a calvary escort.
There’s also the consideration that a carriage is far more practical - the one-horse carriage on pavement could take 4 people, plus some baggage, while horseback would be crowded for two people an limit the baggage. Besides a horse being very expensive as mentioned, it’s like the difference between a sedan and a ninja motorcycle - except you’re not going to satisfy any speed cravings on horseback in a downtown, based on the San Francisco footage. And a ninja-style motorcycle certainly isn’t practical transportation either.
So if you could afford to keep a horse, you could also afford to buy a carriage. Riding was something you did for recreation at your country house. Thanks, all.
bob++ — Great article. Thanks! (But what do people have against pdfs?)
chappachula — Fascinating is the right word. Thank you. There was a guy riding a white horse at about 6:00, but that’s all I saw. The street wasn’t as manure-filled as I’d expected; maybe the automobile was already having an effect. Odd that the steering wheels were all on the right, though.
This has a picture showing the exhaust problem with horses.
What a funny question to ask in a thread about lost history!
It wasn’t that long ago that people accessed the internet through dial-up modems. They were slow. Downloading large files took time, and pdf’s were legendarily slow. So giving a warning about clicking on a link that would take a long time and keep your computer occupied was politeness.
Some people seem to be not keen to download pdf’s even with a fast connection.
The film of Market St in 06 made me look for a similar film of a London street. It is much the same although the streets are narrower and of course we were driving (mostly) on the left.
I think it was mostly an issue of efficiency. As you’ll see in the old movies and photographs, a single horse could pull a small cart. Which means a horse can move a lot more by pulling a wagon than it could carry on its back.
The only time people would ride a horse would be in situations like broken ground where a wheeled vehicle wasn’t practical. If you had a street or road or even a good trail, a wagon was better. And city streets were fine for wheeled traffic.
They probably got there quicker than I do on days the lights are out of sync on North Capitol.
Also, for heavy hauling, oxen were used.
In the case of San Francisco, a streetcar line was built to haul the waste from downtown out to the big park being built - now the Golden Gate park - there is still a shelter built for the streetcars (it may have been destroyed to prevent use by homeless).
This one always gets a chuckle: The automobile was originally viewed as a fix for a pollution problem: critter crap.
Remember the ending of Rocky & Bullwinkle? the little guy with the trash can and broom? Guess what those guys were originally sweeping up?
Bicycles were a blessing in that era.
Personal transportation for the City dweller! That did not eat hay or poop! HUZZAH! Three cheers & a tiger for velocipedes!
Thanks! I’ve seen the warning a lot, but never understood the reason for it.