John H. Wallace and Joseph Battell

Clash of the Trotting Titans

In the middle of the 1800s and beyond, two men arose, both possessing tremendous intellect and strong ideals; they brought clarity out of the chaos in our northern breeds. These two men, John H. Wallace (1822-1906) and Joseph Battell (1839-1915), were titans in the field of pedigree authenticity and breed building, and they provided a rock solid foundation for our equine knowledge.

They both had a powerful conviction that breeds could not improve and progress without proper pedigrees, and with both of them possessing a scientific inclination, they understood that you must know the bloodlines to preserve and improve the gifts residing in them. Their passions, Wallace for the Trotter and Battell for the Morgan, brought them into clashes over lineages.

[The Morgan Black Hawk and the American Trotter Lady Suffolk, both born in 1833, the finest trotters of their day.]

I have read statements about their mutual animosity in various articles and histories, for example in the recent piece by Amanda Kay Gustin "Joseph Battell and the Morgan Horse" (Vermont Magazine, March/April 2017, pg. 72): "For years, he carried on a feud with John Wallace, editor of the American Trotting Register, arguing the Morgan horses--not the Standardbred--was the true trotting racehorse of America". And I had discovered while doing my own research for Standardbred Sport Horses, that Wallace was not fully aware of all the Morgan lines that entered the American Trotter. But, for that matter, neither was Battell, for it took him into the next century to finally discover that the great pacer, Copperbottom, a horse who became a foundation of the later Canadian Pacer and spawned a sire-line responsible for the important trotting sire Pilot Jr., was not a Canadian Pacer as both he and Wallace thought, but a son of Figure out of a Narragansett dam, born in Vermont, not Canada.

Often the work of uncovering the truth of lineages went on for decades, and many times there were conflicting accounts of the same horse given by people who had some remembrance or tradition of the horse. And many horses had the same name, and stories attached to one horse could be pasted onto another as time went on. It was truly a tangled mess that these men, and any others that try to verify pedigrees, encounter.

And contrary to the cries that Wallace was always against the Morgan, I found this interesting assessment Wallace made in vol. 2 of the American Trotting Register (1874 p.60): "It is very evident that many branches of what we may call the Morgan family are again growing in the public estimation and quality. Their vigorous constitution, docility, style and trappiness [short, quick high gait], will do well to engraft upon much of our big, loosely made trotting stock, and at the same time nothing may be lost in speed if the proper selections made." Not quite the statement of a man that supposedly didn't appreciate the Morgan is it? 

And Battell was not always anti-Wallace either. For example, in volume 3 of his American Stallion Register, Battell reprints Wallace's study on the lineage of Messenger, and his belief that the best way to breed a fast trotter is to breed from two fast trotters. Battell says on page 677: "Unquestionably it was written by Mr. Wallace and to our way of thinking shows him at his best, proclaiming what he believed to be the truth.."

Completing their goals was not going to be easy, as Wallace especially, was working with raw material, with very questionable lineages, and little printed matter, requiring often in the beginning personal journeys around the country to track down breeders, stockmen or people who might remember the horse in question. And he was basing his Register requirement on performance, not pedigree; the horse needed to demonstrate it was indeed a good trotter.

Adding to the incompatibility of their missions was that the pedigree criteria differed for each of them. Wallace was choosing horses based on performance, and he saw an accurate pedigree as a tool identifying the potent sources of fast trot, empowering the breeders so they could improve the breed by concentrating the best bloodlines. Battell was looking for horses that descended in sire line from Figure, the foundation sire of the Morgan, with no performance standard required.

Battell, had the advantage of starting with the work of Daniel Linsley (Morgan Horses 1857), and of course he had the vast groundwork that Wallace had already produced from 1867 to 1885 (Battell says he began his own research in 1884). Battell too, found it best to get in his carriage and travel far and near to track down information on the Morgan Horse. It sometimes took many years to finally get a bloodline straight and sometimes they were not successful. These incredible inspired scholars had huge personalities, and were both relentlessly self-driven in their tasks, so it is no wonder they battled now and then.

Wallace's mission as summed up by Benjamin Gue ("History of Iowa from Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century", vol.4 "John H. Wallace" 1903): "His whole interest and labor were in tracing and classifying pedigrees and records and drawing from the statistics so collected and classified deductions as to the sources of speed, the law of heredity and the way to improve the breed of Trotting horses." Wallace was not a breeder, but a researcher, editor and writer, and few could match him in those abilities. It was he, more than any other person, that insured the development of the Standardbred, and in doing so provided us with a rich and amazing accurate history of our American breeds. 

Battell's purpose seemed to be at first to prove the Morgan the better or original trotter, but was hampered because there was no racetrack then or ever in the past in Vermont to test the Morgan, and the breeders there wanted first and foremost an all purpose horse, not just a racer, and as mentioned above he included any horse descended from Figure, whether it trotted or was fast or not. The Morgan certainly had excellent racing genetics coming from both the foundation sire Figure, who was really an American Running Horse, and the Narragansett and Running Horse mares he was bred to--racehorse genes combined with racehorse genes. History shows those same genetics, when selected for racing and performance tested on a racetrack produced the first class racehorse breed: the Canadian Pacer.

Overtime, Battell seemed to focus more on preserving the Morgan Horse with all its attributes, and to establish a verified history and lineage. Battell was a philanthropist, environmentalist, and a breeder of Morgan Horses. And in his pursuit of the Morgans that had relocated to Canada, he uncovered and published information on the roots of the Canadian Pacer that would have been lost otherwise.

So, I decided to take a closer look, using a timeline. In my own breed research activities over the years, I found I have made many errors and accepted accounts that were not quite right because I neglected to place the information in real time.  Once I adopted the practice of applying a timeline to what I was studying it was like a sharp knife, cutting through the myths and common assumptions in our equine wisdom, revealing the truth more often; and so I felt it would help here, and was surprised what was revealed.

The Work of Wallace and Battell


1867 - American Stud Book, a Thoroughbred register, with an appendix containing 700 trotting horse entries.

1871 - Wallace's American Trotting Register vol. 1, it had a 2:40 mile requirement.

1874 - Wallace's American Trotting Register vol. 2 contains a table of sires 2:30, and contains his 70 page essay: "How Shall We Breed the Trotting Horse?", and he brought out useful tables of information to assist the breeder in evaluating the various bloodlines.

1875 - Wallace's Monthly began and continued with him as editor until 1891. It revolutionized the sport by posting articles and notices on various horses and situations, allowing the public to contribute what they knew about obscure bloodlines, and it became the industry forum, and there were battles over lineages waged regularly.

1879 - the birth of the Standardbred! Wallace changed the register requirement  a 2:30 or better time: Wallace's American Trotting Register vol. 3. Wallace also included the Board of Censors, who had been installed to help him decide which pedigrees were correct.

1882 - "History of the Pacer" appeared in Wallace's Monthly

1884 - vol. 4 Wallace's American Trotting Register---in this volume he adds a separate list of standard pacers upto 1881 (Pacers broke through the prohibition of them racing in open contests with trotters in 1879.)

1885 - vol. 5 Wallace's American Trotting Register-- a very useful table was added in this volume: " Table of Great Broodmares". On pgs. iii & iv Wallace also made a vague reference to the theft of his material and intellectual work. He had recently foiled an attempt by the Kentucky breeders to take over control of the breed. They had published their own Trotting Register, but had plagiarized Wallace's work, and they got caught red handed and their new register died right then.

1886 -  Wallace's Year Book commenced containing the various tables and comparisons of performance which had previously appeared in the register. This came out yearly until he sold out the rights in 1891.

1886 - vol.6 Wallace's American Trotting Register--Wallace mentions his intention to raise the standard from 2:30 to 2:25 after volume 7 came out, with the plan to periodically raise it as the breed progresses.  He also added a paragraph titled: Nature of Evidence Required, so it was clear to the breeder what was required to be registered.

1888 - vol. 7 Wallace's American Trotting Register

1890 - vol. 8 Wallace's American Trotting Register--by now most of the tables had been shifted to the Year Book, and the register had become just that: a register.

1891 -  vol. 9 Wallace's American Trotting Register, the last volume with Wallace as editor. The American Trotting Breeders Association took control of all Wallace's publications with a hefty buy-out, and he retired from the battleground.

1891 - Thomas Parsons came out with his Parsons' National Standard Register of Pacing Horses, but this year it was also decided to bring the pacers into full standing in the Trotting Register and so further volumes of this work were needed. Previously the pacers had been added as a separate list, or put in the non-standard list, now they were acknowledged as full portion of the breed.

1897 - Wallace published his masterpiece: The Horse in America in His Derivation, History and Development.

1906 - Wallace's death


1894 - Morgan Horse and Register  vol. 1

1905 - vol. 2 Morgan Horse and Register 

1909 - American Stallion Register vol. 1 (Wallace dead 3 years)

1911 - vol. 2 American Stallion Register

1913 - vol. 3 American Stallion Register

1915 - Battell's death, and vol. 3 Morgan Horse and Register

1939 - vols. 4&5 of American Stallion Register

The Clash:

As you can see, Wallace began publishing 27 years before Battell. And it is significant that Battell's first volume of the Morgan Horse and Register appeared after Wallace had left his publishing empire to the American Trotting Breeders Association in a buy-out of the rights to his work: which means Wallace was no longer editor of the Monthly after 1891 either.

So when could they be having the clashes so often alluded to?  Battell may have given us the answer when he said he took nine years to research his first Morgan Register volume, which then shows he began about the time of vol. 5 of Wallace's American Trotting Register. There is then an overlap of 7 years in real time when they certainly could have been head to head, debating lineages in the Monthly or possibly by personal correspondence. Wallace's Monthly was often the battleground of all lineage disputes of the day, and naturally Battell, like everyone else would use that venue to challenge Wallace, or any one else, who presented evidence or theories he thought wrong. Wallace never mentions Battell in his book that came out in 1897.

In the beginning of his work Battell was focused on preserving and improving the Morgan and he insisted the Morgan and not the Standardbred was the real American Trotting Horse. And he set about to prove that conviction.

[Note: Messenger and Figure were early trotting typesetters--they were able to stamp a strong trotting action onto the largely gaited American Running Horse, and they were standing at the same time. Trotting action was preferred by the harness racing advocates and those who bred for carriage. The other great typesetters came later. Morgan bloodlines are very significant in the Standardbred, but never achieved the number of Messenger's because Figure was in Vermont and Messenger was in New York and New York had became the trotting hub of the industry in the early 1800s and Vermont did not have a race track.]

Wallace's product was already published and established as the backbone of the trotting industry when Battell brought out his. Perhaps it was Battell's anger in not seeing what he thought proper credit for Morgan ancestry in key horses in Wallace's work that sparked the dust-ups. Morgans who met the speed requirement were accepted into the Trotting Registry just like any other Trotter, so his objection wasn't about entry. Battell of course contributed to the ongoing pedigree research in Wallace's Monthly while raising his objections to lineages he felt were not correct.

The most dramatic of their skirmishes was over Seelys American Star, and Battell was right in fighting this battle, as his excellent work on this demonstrates. Through dedicated research Battell was able to fully document Seelys American Star, proving he was by Coburns American Star---a Morgan. We have a commentary on this disagreement from the Middlebury College Newsletter, vol. XIII 12/1938: "Correcting incorrect pedigrees was a hobby with Battell which led frequently to serious embarrassment of horse owners and once came to a $50,000 suit. John H. Wallace had stated in his monthly magazine that a horse named Seelys American Star was a thoroughbred. Battell knew better: American Star was a Morgan and in no uncertain terms he informed Wallace of the mistake. Wallace then publicly  accused  Battell of giving a false pedigree, whereupon the latter immediately brought suit of $50,000 for injury to his character. About that time Wallace figured he should check up, and after visiting the owner of Star was ready to admit his mistake. Promptly his attorney was sent to Middlebury to apologize. But that was not enough...Wallace accused me in his Monthly, Battell bellowed, and he'll have to apologize in the Monthly."

Wallace did publish an admission of his error and apology in the Monthly, and all the drama was put to rest. Battell certainly did not need the money; he was the richest man in Vermont.

I can't address all the differences of opinions in horse ancestry they had, but will bring you an example that I think is very significant. By using a timeline my awareness was drawn to the unmistakable fact that most of Battell's biting criticisms of Wallace were penned after Wallace was dead. Before even the first volume of Battell's American Stallion Register was published---in 1909---Wallace was dead three years. 

Conflicts over pedigrees were the norm in the growing trotting breed, and the Monthly which began in 1875 was invaluable in bringing all the pieces and factions together. Wallace, however,  had to make a decision at some point on which versions of each pedigree was the right one. And no matter how much time and effort went into the process he knew he made errors occasionally, and even when he was sure of the findings there was always someone out there who was angered that their pet theory did not prevail. He says about this work in volume 3 of the Trotting Register:

"It is not claimed to be free from errors, but it certainly has received more care and research than either of its predecessors. The single object has been to arrive at the truth in every cross of every pedigree, without regard to previous records or presentations. The author has not hesitated, in any instance, to overthrow his own past work as well as that of all others, where it did not come up to the standard of truth. No pride of opinion has been permitted to stand in the way of careful and thorough investigation." (Introduction vol 3, 1879)

But that is not all he did to insure the correctness of the entries, he applied to the National Trotting Breeders Association, who he had asked to oversee his work, to create a "Board of Censors', so that there would be a board of appeal to send disputes to, and to help decide in tough cases. The board was in place to handle the challenges by 1879 as well. And they did rather well, there were a few that got by them over the years, but all-in-all it worked to settle each case fairly and truthfully.

Now we come to possibly the ugliest pedigree dispute between the two, although Wallace was not around to participate. And Battell's vitriol reveals in this incident that he was bitterly resentful of Wallace. The major focus was the pedigree of Engineer ~1802, a early trotting sire that stood on Long Island, NY. Evidently Battell was not satisfied with the posting Wallace made in volume 1  (1871), and then after all was said and done, Wallace repeated it in his 1897 book, which of course was his final determination. The pedigree had been through the pubic discussions and in the end the following entry remains:

"Engineer, gr. h., 18--; got by Messenger, 1562; dam unknown, but believed to be well-bred. For a number of years this horse was represented to have been imported into Canada by a British officer, and to have found his way, by surreptitious means, into the State of New York, about 1814. His advertisements of that period conveyed this impression. Thomas Jackson and Geo. Tappen owned the horse, and in after years the latter, who was an unusually candid man for one of his position and pursuits, gave David W. Jones, of Cold Harbor, L. I., the true story of the horse. His former owner, in order to save him from attachment of a creditor, ran him off from Pa., where he was bred, and sold him to Jackson and Tappen, at a very low price for so fine an animal; subsequent investigations clearly established the fact that he was got by Messenger, probably in 1802, the year he stood at Cooper's Ferry. He was sixteen hands and an inch high, and of most perfect proportions. He stood two to three years about Jericho, and was taken into Suffolk Co." Pg. 125, vol. 1

Battell had continued his research for unsung Morgan horses from the Morgan Horse and Register, and he moved his attention into those that might be in the Trotting Register in 1884, and he must have combed through the whole three volumes trying to find any error or omission. The lineage of Engineer was a difficult one, and Wallace had continued to work on it since 1867. There was a whole school of myth surrounding this horse, and he believed he had finally cut through it all to the truth when he posted Engineer's entry in 1871.

Others preferred the fantasy romance of some British Officer in Canada, who had his horse stolen from him and it was taken to New England and then on to Long Island. But there is no real evidence of this, and that story had been used several times for several other horses. The whole thing stunk. Battell wanted this horse to be a Morgan, because from his sons had descended two of the best trotting mares there ever was: Lady Suffolk and Princess (dam of Happy Medium). And he believed because Engineer was described by some as being elegant, that it had to have Morgan inroads. Silly, I know, but Battell was serious about this as he mentions it repeatedly in his presentations, and reading all his reasoning in the American Stallion Register volume 2,  1911, I came away thinking this was the main evidence driving him. I don't see how he could be so fixated on this point because many Running Horses were elegant and of course many Thoroughbreds were considered elegant, so to me it means nothing. Besides, the dam of Engineer was never named or identified, she could be anything, and Battell's objection was in this horse being said to be sired by Messenger. Remember Battell, classified a Morgan as a horse descended from Figure on the sire line. And Engineer was either 16.1 or 16.2 hands according to various descriptions. Which son of Figure was this tall or even close? Most were 15 hands or under, and Engineer was a grey, not a common Morgan color. Wallace had examined all those same stories and reports, and he came to a different conclusion.

But Battell was not going to let the matter rest. And so it was, his friend, Judge W. H. Bliss in 1885, penned a hit piece attacking Wallace's integrity using this horse as his case. The judge was a probate judge in Vermont and he presented his proposal: "Pedigree Manufacturing- as Ilustrated By the Engineers". It is a pointed and vile attack on Wallace. It was aimed at discrediting not only Wallace, but the people who provided the information on the horse, particularly Wallace's key witness: David W. Jones, who Wallace gave the most weight to because he had interviewed the owner who brought the horse to Long Island: George Tappen. Wallace found Jones credible in the past, and he was a resident horseman of Long Island where Engineer stood. Bliss implied both Jones and Wallace were liars and in cahoots, conspiring to deceive the public together. What was Wallace's motive in this scam? According to the Judge, Wallace was prejudiced for Messenger bloodlines, and to him if a horse was a trotter, it therefore had to be a Messenger. The Judge was asking the reader to swallow that the man who had created a breed based on performance, was according to the Judge, rigging the stud book to favor Messenger lines. Maybe the Judge did not understand Trotter Registery requirements?

Okay, so what does this have to do with Battell other than the Judge and he knew each other? The whole piece was designed to throw discredit on the Engineer ancestry as recorded in the Register. And whose goal was it to claim this horse as not of Messenger descent but of Figure? It was Battell, who tied his whole reputation into discrediting Wallace. How can I say this? Battell tells us it is so! In the preface to his first volume of the American Stallion Register (1909), Battel gives away his motive when he explains this work, the Stallion Register, exists because "a very large proportion of the pedigrees of the more noted progenitors of the foundation stock of the American trotter and pacer, as recorded in Wallace's American Trotting Register, which was the usually accepted authority, were largely erroneous." So there it is: Battell thought he was going to become the new trotting authority, and correct all the alleged errors in the 30,000 horses in the Register. Remember, the entries were not just chosen by Wallace, but put to peer review in the Monthly and then finally approved by the Board of Censors. Wallace was dead already thirteen years when Battell decided to publicly announce he would fill his shoes. And that is not all on this, for Battell was just warming up and he saved his kill shot for volume 2, and he used the Engineer pedigree to do it.

In the Introduction, on page xviii-xxiv (7 pages) Battell reprints the entire character assassination penned by Judge Bliss. Clearly then, Battell was laying a foundation for his 'correction' of Wallace's entry. When Battel presented his version later in the volume and his reasoning of why Wallace was wrong, he echoed what the Judge had said: "Mr. Wallace, permitting his prejudices to control his judgment, recorded Engineer as got by imported Messenger." (pg. 231).For five pages Battell goes on with conjecture, but little fact, and after all that what is his entry for this horse? 

"Engineer (1-2), Breeder and breeding unknown but is quite probable that he was got by the original Morgan horse."

That's it? He had nothing except he thought he might be a Morgan? If Battell had found some real connection between Figure and this horse he would have posted it, as he did in the case of Seelys American Star. Instead all he could enter was a weak, baseless entry (above). My estimation of Battell has taken a dive; I see him now as a vindictive person, who holding a grudge against Wallace with his actions discredits his own work, much of which I admire. This supposed feud between the two, which writers far and wide state went on for years, turns out to be a one-sided hate fest, cowardly staged after Wallace was long gone. 

And what did Battell gain from this nasty bit of business? He got to enter Engineer and his descendants as a Morgan family. To this day 'historians' of the Morgan have taken his word on this as gospel. I am hoping most of them don't realize they are continuing a fraud.

In studying the works of these giants, another point to consider is it is possible that certain entries in these works may have been written by their staff. Each of these authorities had a 'right-hand man', talented individuals who not just held down the office functions, but at times helped write, fact check, edit and correlate the findings. Battell had Thomas E. Boyce, a mathematics professor, and Wallace had Leslie MacLeod, his associate editor. It is a testimony to the character and work of their respective bosses, that after Battell's death, Boyce helped publish his unfinished works, and MacLeod wrote the excellent appendix to Wallace's book. No matter the feathers Battell and Wallace ruffled in the sporting world by their insistence on honest pedigrees and their personal theories, much is revealed by the lasting loyalty displayed by their own staff. 

Personally, I find it remarkable they were able to accomplish as much as they did, and they are certainly heroes of mine. To do this type of work, you must be focused, and driven, and because of that orientation you can or have to skip over side investigations that are not the first priority. For example, Battell missed the historical record of the Virginia Running Horse, that its origin was early Hobby and Running Horse imports and that it was a gaited racehorse, hunter and saddle horse breed, and that it was birthed at least 50 years before the Narragansett, and that some of its lines entered both their beloved breeds. 

Wallace was also the first to comment that speed was attached to the pacing factor in our mid-gait stock, and he took a tremendous amount of industry criticism when he published his findings in 1882. The general consensus of the day was that speed came only from the Thoroughbred. When Wallace traveled to England to trace Messenger's ancestry, he also took the time to investigate the origin of the original racing stock brought to our colonies. He located papers and reports made on the colonies and their progress, as well as shipping records. And they revealed the natural pacers being shipped from England and Ireland, and he documented all of that history in his later book (1897). 

After Wallace was gone, there was a strong resistance to the history of the pacing racing stock the colonies received. It was not the narrative the powers that be in the breed wanted to hear. And there was a virtual blackout on the knowledge. Battell certainly did not accept what Wallace had published about it, because he clung to the popular notion that the Narragansett was the source of all pacing stock to the rest of the colonies and Canada. And John Hervey, fifty years later, in his important 1947 book: The American Trotter, declines to mention the original pacing racehorses of Virginia, and pushes instead the popular theory that the speed in the Standardbred comes from the Thoroughbred. He discussed the Narragansetll, and like Battell he credited the gaited horses of Virginia-Maryland to the Naragansett. 

It took the fine modern scholar Alexander MacKay-Smith in his beautiful 1983 book: Colonial Quarter Race Horse, to bring back this knowledge and enlarge on it with his discoveries from the Virginia archives. And later, my own humble 2017 work: Standardbred Sport Horses, to set the record straight again. John H. Wallace stands alone as a genius without peer.

As I have mentioned, these pedigree studies and searches could go on for decades, and often what they found and thought truthful in the beginning, they had to amend later in further publications, which both Battell and Wallace were usually faithful in doing. This is hard work, and both of these men deserve our everlasting gratitude that they did not give up on it and that they published what they found. 

[Daniel Lambert, a Morgan Trotter, one of the greatest racers and most beloved horses of his day, revered not just for his great trotting action, but his overall beauty and sweet nature. He carried equal amounts of Figure and Messenger in his lineage.]

I am coming away from this study with a different view then when I started it. I still believe Wallace was a formidably gifted man, but overall now I see him also as a fairer man than Battell. Wallace's work was used by all his later critics and detractors, all of them had their own agendas. They all used his work and research because he was the pathfinder, the ground breaker. And many made their careers on continuing his project or trying to steer the control of the breed into their own camps. Battell was just one of many that were snapping at his heels, and considering Wallace had the whole Kentucky contingent of breeders trying to take over the breed, it is probable Wallace was not going to waste a lot of energy fighting Battell. This might explain why, other than the spats in the Monthly, which were a normal thing, that Wallace did not go out of his way to ridicule or slander Battell. As I said, he never mentioned Battell in his book. It was Battell that did the back stabbing, not Wallace.

Of all Wallace's rivals and opponents, however, Battell stands on his own as a significant independent researcher and massive contributor on our nearly lost equine histories; for example, without his work I don't think we would have much on the Canadian Pacer. I understand Battell's passion for the Morgan, and his burning desire for the Morgan to get the credit it was due, but I am a little disappointed in his less than gracious attitude, when he goes out of his way to smear Wallace so viciously, and in some cases without cause.

The work these two titans produced cannot be overestimated, and while they did not invent the Morgan (~1820) or the Trotter (1818), they produced the solid bedrock of our breeds. Both of these dedicated breed historians built up and restored and improved a breed: Battell the Morgan and Wallace the American Trotter. And Wallace did something no one else did, he created a breed, the American Standardbred, not by pedigree but on performance, and his work insured its success. "Mr. Wallace's works have a place in horse history, secure, unique, alone. Created, we might say from nothing, they each and all grew and prospered in his care and guidance and became powers of good and auxiliaries of industry...Wallace's works will live after him." (Leslie MacLeod, pg 559 in the appendix to Wallace's book).


Battell, Joseph Morgan Horse and Register volumes 1,2&3, 1894, 1905, 1915

      American Stallion Register volumes 1,2&3, 1909, 1911, 1913

Gue, Benjamin "History of Iowa from Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century" vol 4 "John H. Wallace" 1903

Gustin, Amanda Kay "Joseph Battell and the Morgan Horse" (Vermont Magazine March/April 2017)

Hervey, John The American Trotter 1947

Kirsan, Kathleen Standardbred Sport Horses 2017

Linsley, Daniel Morgan Horses 1857

MacKay-Smith, Alexander The Colonial Quarter Race Horse 1983

Middlebury College Newsletter, vol. xiii 12/1938

Parsons, Thomas E. Parsons' National Standard Register of Pacing Horses 1891

Wallace, John H. American Stud Book vol. 1  1867

       Wallace's American Trotting Register vols. 1 through 9, 1871,1874, 1879, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1888, 1891

      Wallace's Year Book 1886-1891

      Wallace's Monthly 1875-1891

      "History of the Pacer" 1882

Related Articles

American Breed Development

American Running Horse

Morgan Horse


Soundness and Durability in the Standardbred

Available online at all book dealers: Amazon, Barnes & Nobles, Bol etc.