There were three branches of service in the 1800's considered "mounted". The Cavalry Arm (to include before the Civil War, Dragoons, Mounted Rifles, and Cavalry), the Light Field Artillery, and believe it or not, the Signal Corps. These guys all carried revolvers and sabers, all wore the horsehair helmet starting in 1872, all wore the mounted jacket prior to 1872 and all were permitted boots at a rate of one pair boots and two pair bootees (shoes in 1875) annually. I have never seen any official (or period unofficial) reference to to "Cavalry" or "Artillery" boots, just "Boots", "Boots, Mounted", or "Boots...mounted men".
The first time a pull on boot appears in 1851. This is a 12" high boot. This is the only boot made and issued from US Arsenals until 1872. (one well known source calls it a M1859 and another a M1861). Those made prior to the civil war had sewn soles. During the war some were made by contractors with pegged.
There is SOME evidence pf a pull on boot worn by light artillery earlier, but exact patterns are not forthcoming. we know that Ringgold's Battery in 1846 (the only horse artillery battery in the Army) recorded their uniform in detail as including knee high boots. However we see most of the field batteries (incorrectly called light batteries at the time...this is a whole different story of confusion) all being issued the horse artillery uniform. There are several nasty letters about this back and forth. There is also production in the early 1840's of something called a "Dragoon Boot" for a year or two. But few are made and it doesn't seem that any of these were ever issued to Dragoons. It is theorized that these are the light artillery boots and would better be described as "dragoon style boots" being knee high like 1812 era dragoon boots. However, manufacture ceased before the Mexican War. Before I move onto to 1851 I will add that every man in Ringgold's battery rode his own horse like a cavalry man (no one road limber chests) which explain a mounted boot to all cannoneers. The M1840 "Light Artillery Saber" is called the M1840 Horse Artillery Saber in the 1841 and 1850 ordnance manuals. Again this makes since for mounted troopers to have a mounted style sword. Unfortunately there IS a mix up and all fields batteries end up with horse artillery uniforms and equipments. Even during the Mexican War, we see the other batteries caring their sabers strapped to the limbers.
1851 there is a new uniform regulation published. under boots it says " For enlisted men of Riflemen, Dragoons, and Light Artillery-ankle and Jefferson, right and left, according to pattern, and in the proportion as now for the Light Artillery".
That last part "...according to pattern, and in the proportion as now for the Light Artillery" suggests that the Light Artillery were wearing boots prior to 1851 and may account for the "Artillery Boot" designation popular among re-enanctors (and sutlers who like to sell M1872 boots to Civil War Cavalry guys). The question becomes the last part: "...and in the proportion as now for the Light Artillery". Does this mean the same dimensions or the same rate of issue (the 1 pair "ankle" boots 2 pair "Jefferson" Bootees ratio). I think it means rate of issue as the first part says "...according to pattern" separated by a comma. Otherwise the wording would be "...according to pattern as now for the Light Artillery". Also the boots described by Ringgold's men as knee high, the M1851 Ankle boot was only 12" in front, hardly knee high. Also the regulations forbid the trousers to be tucked in.
What this boils down to is that mounted men (regardless of branch) were issued both boots and shoes and a rate of 1:2 and that is consistent with most of the second half of the 18th century. It was understood that the boots were for riding (though as noted by myself and others, most light artillerymen didn't ride a horse). The shoes would have been worn in dress (when you didn't tuck your trousers in, first officially authorized in 1872, but being done long before) and dismounted duties. Walking in boots that weren't custom made for you without some sort of tightening strap is only going to rub and blister. However, some enlisted foot soldiers did acquire boots (as per the above referenced General Orders). This was the days before legging and having walk good parts of the prairies (especially the cactus and mesquite choked scrub of south Texas), I have seen good denim trousers trashed and as a result my ankles and calves suffered. I can see soldiers preferring a few blisters to have leg protection and not have to pick prickly pear spines out of your leg for hours (and it helps with them nasty stinging and biting creatures we have down here). In the 2nd Seminole War we find soldiers wearing their cotton jackets and wool trousers in the torrid heat of the everglades because the saw-grass was shredding the cotton trousers and their legs. So I do see both sides of the argument.
Page 62 of Doug McChristian's "The US Army in the West 1870-1880" has a great image of two infantrymen wearing 1872 pattern boots, tucked in, not in the field. Neat image I must say.
Chris Fischer
F-Troop