|
Post by Beth on Mar 20, 2016 8:24:03 GMT
SourceThe cavalry was a vital mobile force that gathered information for Civil War commanders and screened the main army from the eyes of the enemy. Cavalry leaders had to be innovative and daring in carrying out their assigned missions. On the Confederate side, arguably the most successful and admired cavalryman was James Ewell Brown “Jeb” Stuart. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities between the states in 1861, Stuart served in the U.S. cavalry out West, primarily protecting settlements along the frontier. Stuart demonstrated his durability in 1857 by surviving a point-blank gunshot to the chest in a skirmish with Native Americans in the Kansas Territory. When Civil War came, he resigned his commission and joined the Confederate army as commander of the 1st Virginia Cavalry. At age 28, Stuart would prove to be an idealistic, heroic and noble loyalist who took pleasure in the excitement of combat. His manner of dress was flamboyant, and his personality fun-loving. He assumed the aura of a romantic cavalier bravely leading his knights against the foe. Stuart’s uniform typically had gold braid on its sleeves, a tasseled sash around the waist, soft leather gloves, hip boots and a plumed hat. His reddish beard stood out as he rode a well-bred steed. Exploits on the field of battle earned Stuart promotion to the rank of major-general in command of a cavalry division numbering some 5,000 men. He became famous in the South and notorious in the North for his successful raids around the Union army on the Virginia Peninsula in June 1862, and again in October following the Battle of Antietam. Stuart was fatalistic about his chances for surviving the war. He normally was in the forefront of his troops during heavy combat. When Southern fortunes took a turn for the worse in 1864, Stuart was in the midst of a battle at Yellow Tavern a few miles north of Richmond. He suffered a mortal wound while engaged with Maj. Gen. Philip Sheridan’s Union cavalry and died on May 12 at age 31. His brief but courageous career earned him a prominent place in history. George Armstrong Custer was a Union cavalryman made from the same mold as Stuart. An 1861 graduate of West Point, two years later, in the midst of the Civil War, he received a promotion to the rank of brigadier-general at the tender age of 22. Flamboyant like Stuart, his Confederate counterpart, Custer wore yellow gloves and a red bandana around his neck to highlight his uniforms. Long curly red hair matched his handlebar mustache. Custer made his mark early in the war by demonstrating initiative and courage in difficult situations. On July 3, 1863, at Gettysburg, he led a daring cavalry charge against Stuart’s much stronger forces and stopped them in their tracks. During Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s Overland Campaign in Virginia in 1864, Custer commanded a cavalry division and was on hand at Yellow Tavern when Jeb Stuart fought his last battle. Custer’s division was part of Sheridan’s cavalry force that blocked Gen. Robert E. Lee’s depleted army from retreating at Appomattox Court House on April 8, 1865. The following day, Lee formerly surrendered his army to Grant. Although he survived the Civil War, George Armstrong Custer died leading a column of the 7th Cavalry against Native American tribes along South Dakota’s Little Bighorn River on June 25, 1874. He packed a lot of living into his 36 years on earth. The widows of these famous cavalrymen, Flora Cooke Stuart and Elizabeth “Libbie” Bacon Custer nurtured their reputations. Libbie Custer, in particular, ensured her beloved husband’s exploits would be ingrained in the national memory. Thomas J. Ryan is the author of “Spies, Scouts & Secrets in the Gettysburg Campaign” and “Essays on Delaware during the Civil War” (signed copies available at Bethany Beach Books). Contact him at pennmardel@mchsi.com, or visit his website at www.tomryan-civilwar.com.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 20, 2016 13:19:03 GMT
The US Cavalry was an all-purpose force compared to how cavalry was fielded by the Europeans. The British had two types of cavalry and these were light and heavy, each type was then broken type into sub-types;
Light; Hussars Lancers Light Dragoons
Heavy; Life Guards Royal Horse Guards Heavy Dragoons
The French complicated things even further; Carabiniers Cuirassiers Chasseurs Hussars Lancers Dragoons Horse Grenadiers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 20, 2016 14:46:52 GMT
The difference was that Stuart was a competent commander who could plan AND lead an operation. Custer's only real qualification was in the execution of the plans of others.
Stuart answered only to the Army commander, and until late in the war the cavalry division was the highest organizational echelon in the ANV. Custer was always under a superior in the cavalry arm and never called the shots for that arm. There is a big difference there.
Forrest should not be forgotten, but he operated quite differently. His was more of a mounted main battle force which foresaw the day of the tank and mechanized Infantry in the armored division nearly a century later. As the war went on Sheridan and Wilson (as we saw some months ago) followed to Forrest mantra.
To explain the difference Stuart operated like a modern armored cavalry regiment, screening, guarding, and conducting operational level reconnaissance, with the occasional raid thrown in, but raiding for the overarching purpose of reconnaissance. The ride around McClellan and the Chambersburg Raid were both for that purpose.
The Union cavalry, late in the war was used like an armored brigade or division, a mounted, more mobile main battle force, that could take on operational maneuver on its own hook, like the operations in the Valley, and the move around the flank from Spotsylvania CH to Yellow Tavern.
Authors who look only at flash and not substance are not authors at all.
Same vehicles horse vs. horse -- tank and IFV vs. tank and CFV, different overarching purpose and mission menu.
ADDENDUM: So the difference was Stuart used foppery in conjunction with his competence as a commander, in much the same way Caesar with his red cloak in battle, and Patton with his prima donna in a mud puddle persona and manner of dress used it, as a motivational factor. Custer used foppery as a cover for his great limitations as a commander. Big difference. So to say James Ewell Brown Stuart and George Custer were from the same mold is at best a superficial look at the two men, and at worst an insult to one who is arguably one of the top three horse soldiers this country has ever produced, the other two being Forrest and Patton.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 20, 2016 21:18:23 GMT
I've always viewed Custer's foppery was at first his way to make sure he always stood out in the crowd but as his career progressed it was his way of anointing his followers as being worthy of his attention. I suspect that if anyone in the 7th beyond Custer's clan tried to mimic his look, they would be quickly put in their place.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 21, 2016 0:21:24 GMT
Stuart and Custer enjoyed the Glory and pomp of war and the opportunity to strike blades. Forrest was a killer who waged war to kill and win not play the bold cavalier. Nathan was frugal with men and used many tactics to win with as little loss as possible.
The Western war was often overlooked because of distance, less populated cities and lack of press coverage and generals like Forrest and Claiborne were often overlooked. Forrest was the only force in the Western Theater that Sherman feared and did his best to eliminate Forrest and his command. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 21, 2016 1:21:58 GMT
Stuart was raised on Ivanhoe. Forrest was raised on Old Grand Dad and a common sense approach to war. Despite my misgivings about Forrest personally, he was one hell of an operational and tactical commander. Stuart though lent color to what otherwise is a dull affair. I think you need both, but I am not at all sure what gage of measurement should be used.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 21, 2016 1:46:29 GMT
Nathan made a fortune dealing in slaves as he was a man of his times and his area of the country. Does not make it right just understandable. Stuart was more of a rapier while Forrest was a meat clever. Custer was neither and tried to be both. Stuart tactics wise ran circles around Custer and Forrest just killed them before they killed him. Forrest's character was evidenced by his farewell speech part of which is cited below: "The Cause for which you have so long and so manfully struggled, and for which you have braved dangers, endured privations, and sufferings, and made so many sacrifices, is today hopeless. The government which we sought to establish and perpetuate, is at an end. Reason dictates and humanity demands that no more blood be shed. Fully realizing and feeling that such is the case, it is your duty and mine to lay down our arms -- submit to the “powers that be” -- and to aid in restoring peace and establishing law and order throughout the land." "The terms upon which you were surrendered are favorable, and should be satisfactory and acceptable to all. They manifest a spirit of magnanimity and liberality, on the part of the Federal authorities, which should be met, on our part, by a faithful compliance with all the stipulations and conditions therein expressed. As your Commander, I sincerely hope that every officer and soldier of my command will cheerfully obey the orders given, and carry out in good faith all the terms of the cartel." He was an enigma in many ways and not someone I would have enjoyed the company of but sure would have asked a lot of questions. Regards Dave www.billslater.com/nbf_bye.htm
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 21, 2016 15:37:53 GMT
I think I can summarize my personal feeling on both by saying that when I wish to study modern armor TTP I turn first to Forrest, and when my menu calls for a look at modern cavalry operations I turn first to Stuart. There is no one on the union side of the ledger that could touch either of them, when it comes to the bold, imaginative use of mounted forces. Wheeler, often forgotten, comes very close.
My feeling are similar about Jackson and Longstreet. Jackson mastered higher echelon maneuver, while Longstreet hit like a sledgehammer. Tell you the truth that is one reason that I am so critical of the division of the ANV into three corps after Chancellorsville, and not giving Jackson's Corps to Stuart. Operationally, when Jackson and Longstreet commanded those two corps, it was like watching a prizefighter jabbing with his left and reserving the knockout for his right. Stuart was the only man I can see, although he was very junior, that could have carried on that traditional approach. In addition they did not have the numbers with the required staff expertise to divide two into three.
Stuart won Chancellorsville for Lee, and I think most overlook the fact.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 21, 2016 18:34:38 GMT
QC I agree with you regarding the elevation of Stuart to Corps Commander. Ironic in that it was Powell Hill who first saw his value and worth leading Jackson Corps after his wounding. Lee would never had allowed Stuart to leave the cavalry since it was the man not the force he relied on. People forget that Lee had plenty of horse soldiers on his Pennsylvania jaunt but he lacked Stuart. Lee relied heavily on Stuart for information and ideas.
Stuart took the best three cavalry brigades with him on ride around the Union army in late June of 1863 leaving the rest of his troops with Lee. Confederate Cavalry at Gettysburg July 1 - July 2 Brig. Gen. Beverly H. Robertson Overall commander by seniority failed to perform well and was relieved after Gettysburg Brig. Gen. William E. “Grumble” Jones The best cavalry commander with Lee but subordinate to Robertson and poorly used Brig. Gen. Albert G. Jenkins His command was with Ewell's Corps and fought on July 1 against Devlin's Brigade of Union cavalry Brig. Gen. John D. Imboden Green and untested troops distrusted by Lee and not used. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 21, 2016 19:37:05 GMT
Agreed on all points. The idea that Lee did not have sufficient cavalry at Gettysburg is totally bogus.
I am sure you know that Stuart and Jones did not get along AT ALL, but both respected the other, and Jones was probably only second to Stuart in ability. Robertson was a waste of human flesh. The other two lackluster.
A guy that I would have liked to have seen develop a little earlier than he did was Butler (very junior). He seems to have had the right stuff. My father always said there were too damned many Lees in the ANV. All were competent people, but their presence left little room for other good people to be nurtured and developed.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 21, 2016 20:33:13 GMT
Lee and the Virginians was the complaint by the other states all during the conflict. In some cases it was a valid point but people need to remember that the state of communications was so poor between the Western sector and Richmond. Confederate railroads were in a very poor state of repair and not all tracks were the same gauge which lead to nightmares for government officials. Many soldiers and politicians had not seen each other in years and command assignments were often given on old friendships and political favors instead of merit.
Elected officials from Mississippi or Arkansas for example did not have contact with many leaders back home while in Richmond. Petty quarrels and jealousies lead to disaster and often more bitter in fighting than against the Federals. One must also factor in that the Genteel Old South was much alive in 1861 and 1862 and caused innumerable headaches for army officials in deciding who ranked who and who could not serve under a man who was not a gentleman. True though hard to believe that so called patriots could place themselves above country. Hard to win with troops like these who fight a duel at the drop of a hat rather acquiesce to a social inferior. Regards Dave
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 21, 2016 20:53:18 GMT
If anyone has interest in this discussion regarding Stuart and the War, I would heartily recommend Douglas Southall Freeman's Lee's Lieutenants: A Study in Command. It was originally published as a 3 volume set but it has since been republished a 1 volume book on Amazon.com.
One truly cannot understand the complexity of Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia till reading this tome which provides rich word pictures of his officers and the army itself. Regards
Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 21, 2016 22:09:04 GMT
Agree about Freeman, although I believe (may be wrong) that the one volume is abridged. you cannot understand the ANV without reading Freeman.
The only critical comment about the three volume set I ever heard was from my Dad, who remarked that Freeman took too much time on Volume 1, Hit the right stride in Volume 2, and seemed too much in a hurry to finish in Volume 3. I agree with him that Volume 2 is the best written, and keeps up a good pace without distractions.
Freeman is also guilty of never running across a Confederate he did not adore, but what would you expect from a man who made his living as editor of the Richmond Times Dispatch. As a sidelight one of his associates at that paper J. Bryan III wrote a diary (against regulations) of his experiences on Yorktown (CV10) in the early months of 1945. It is published under the name Aircraft Carrier, and is a splendid book for those like me interested in naval warfare.
There is a vignette at the end where he was transferred off Yorktown to another billet, and was riding as a passenger in Hazelwood (DD531). He got off Hazelwood the day before she was hit by a Kamikaze. Take a look at Navsource some time to see what he just missed. She was repaired (one of those where the hell do I start repairs) and went on to serve for a long time. Used to see her quite often when I would visit PAX River where she was a test ship for DASH.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 23, 2016 14:52:42 GMT
We have been discussing how Stuart and Forrest were superior to Custer in tactics and leadership but to give GAC his due I offer the Battle of Fallen Timbers. Custer would have matched Forrest's bravery on April 8, 1862. Forrest was commanding the rear guard of the Confederate army as it retreated from Shiloh to Corinth, Mississippi. General Sherman lead the Federal advance and Forrest and his command charged the Union troops to protect a Confederate hospital. Forrest's bravery and rash behavior was certainly reminiscent of Custer.
I high recommend you look into this conflict and you will see the comparison I mentioned between Forrest and Custer. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 23, 2016 15:25:52 GMT
Leaders are expected to have courage Dave. leaders are also expected to do what is necessary, when it is necessary. I do not believe I have ever said that I did not think Custer courageous, but in judging the ability of a leader, you must look at the whole man. In this instance a look at the whole man tells me that Custer was not fit enough to hold Forrest's horse, or fit enough to play Sweeny's banjo.
|
|