|
Post by royalwelsh on Jul 19, 2015 22:48:29 GMT
One of the frequently asked questions, given Gen Philip Sheridan's long-term relationship with Lt Col George Armstrong Custer and the controversy over the operational and tactical latitude given to the latter by Gen Alfred Terry, is whether Gen Sheridan should have taken personal command in the field - any thoughts?
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jul 20, 2015 0:15:00 GMT
RW
I think Sheridan was too distracted to camp out on a campaign as he had recently married a younger woman. He was ok with camping at his pace not the indians's. I am of the opinion if he had accompanied GAC the outcome of the LBH would be very different. Sheridan would not give up command of the regiment to become a company commander as GAC did Sheridan knew of Custer's flaws but his hatred of the indians and his desire to eradicate them over came any concern. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 20, 2015 0:41:16 GMT
RW I think Sheridan was too distracted to camp out on a campaign as he had recently married a younger woman. He was ok with camping at his pace not the indians's. I am of the opinion if he had accompanied GAC the outcome of the LBH would be very different. Sheridan would not give up command of the regiment to become a company commander as GAC did Sheridan knew of Custer's flaws but his hatred of the indians and his desire to eradicate them over came any concern. Regards Dave That does tend to be a distraction. I wonder if the Belknap hearings might have been a factor as well. How well did Sheridan know both Custer's and Terry's personalities? Did Sheridan expect that Terry was more likely as not to let Custer loose? Beth
|
|
|
Post by royalwelsh on Jul 20, 2015 1:42:59 GMT
Beth,
I think it was very likely that Terry would cut GAC loose, and that was the problem. And Sheridan should have anticipated it.
Terry was no cavalryman, and only cavalry were going to be able to force a battle upon any unwilling hostiles.
Terry to me seems quite the politician. He would share the glory if GAC succeeded, and would hide behind GAC's reputation if it all went wrong.
I suppose he was a lawyer by training, and that would factor into his personal risk management.
RW
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 20, 2015 1:54:21 GMT
Personally I think Sheridan should have gone alone. He should have left Terry to run Powder Depot which was more to his skill set.
Even if Sheridan just stayed on the Far West like Terry, I believe he would have given Custer different directions and Custer would have been less likely to disobeyed orders.
Custer knew exactly how Terry handled it when someone went beyond the scope of their orders thanks to Reno's scout. Custer had reason to believe,that even if he didn't go exactly to the full extent of Terry's orders, there would be little consequence.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 20, 2015 6:15:17 GMT
Why aren't we asking if Sheridan should have gone along with Crook? Why is it always asked if Sheridan should have gone along with Terry? Think about that one.
Are we then posing a question that should have been posed at the time, or are we posing the question, because we are in a position to know the consequences of Sheridan not being there?
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 20, 2015 6:41:40 GMT
Boy, talking about functional fixedness--you are right. Perhaps it is because Crook had been out in the field fighting NA but Terry had spent a great deal of the time behind a desk? I am planning on starting the recommended book about Crook tonight. I need to know more about him before I can make really informed comments. Doesn't stop me from asking questions though
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 20, 2015 12:07:27 GMT
RW,
At this point in time would Sheridan have been fit enough for this campaign. I guess he could have traveled with the Far West to the depot. The leash may have been tighter had Sheridan issued the orders, then again maybe not. One must look at the latitude given to his commanders during the ACW. Sometimes very definitive, sometimes not so much.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 20, 2015 21:10:04 GMT
RW, At this point in time would Sheridan have been fit enough for this campaign. I guess he could have traveled with the Far West to the depot. The leash may have been tighter had Sheridan issued the orders, then again maybe not. One must look at the latitude given to his commanders during the ACW. Sometimes very definitive, sometimes not so much. But it's my understanding that Sheridan was a bit miffed at Custer due to his Cogressional testimony. I would be willing to bet that any leash used at that time would have a choke chain.
|
|
|
Post by royalwelsh on Jul 21, 2015 20:33:16 GMT
Why aren't we asking if Sheridan should have gone along with Crook? Why is it always asked if Sheridan should have gone along with Terry? Think about that one. Are we then posing a question that should have been posed at the time, or are we posing the question, because we are in a position to know the consequences of Sheridan not being there? QC,
I think there is an element of hindsight but, even contemporaneously "Ulysses" Quincannon, who is your Meade and who is your Sherman? Crook or Terry? Chasing down hostiles. If I was divisional commander, I know Terry would be my "Meade". And Terry's control of GAC would be of concern.
RW
|
|
|
Post by royalwelsh on Jul 21, 2015 20:38:09 GMT
RW, At this point in time would Sheridan have been fit enough for this campaign. I guess he could have traveled with the Far West to the depot. The leash may have been tighter had Sheridan issued the orders, then again maybe not. One must look at the latitude given to his commanders during the ACW. Sometimes very definitive, sometimes not so much. Tom,
Sheridan was 4 years younger than Terry. And one theory as to why GAC turned down the offer of Maj Brisbin and his cavalry was that it would have entailed Gen Terry coming along. Not much for Terry to do with just 5 or 6 infantry companies.
RW
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 21, 2015 21:24:44 GMT
Granted (pardon the pun) Justin, but putting my Ulysses hat on, I suspect that I would not have had someone commanding the Department of Dakota in whom I did not have full faith and confidence in as both an administrative and field commander, and part of commanding includes sitting on a subordinate when that subordinate requires sitting on.
Terry had great value to the Army, it is just that his value was not in the job he was given. We have both seen this before in our respective careers. In fact we have both probably held jobs ourselves where we were not the best fit.
I suspect had Sheridan accompanied Terry, as Grant accompanied Meade, Terry would have become a supernumerary, and he would have resented it and Sheridan, and whomever he thought instigated the act until his dying day.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 21, 2015 21:36:43 GMT
Granted (pardon the pun) Justin, but putting my Ulysses hat on, I suspect that I would not have had someone commanding the Department of Dakota in whom I did not have full faith and confidence in as both an administrative and field commander, and part of commanding includes sitting on a subordinate when that subordinate requires sitting on.
Terry had great value to the Army, it is just that his value was not in the job he was given. We have both seen this before in our respective careers. In fact we have both probably held jobs ourselves where we were not the best fit.
I suspect had Sheridan accompanied Terry, as Grant accompanied Meade, Terry would have become a supernumerary, and he would have resented it and Sheridan, and whomever he thought instigated the act until his dying day. So how does an army get around such a conundrum? Terry isn't the right man for the job but you have to send Terry?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 21, 2015 21:53:14 GMT
Personally Beth, I am happy that it was not my decision to make. The seniority system would make it difficult, because there was an awful lot of dead wood wearing stars at that time, so a one for one job swap would not necessarily get you the right answer.
Given all, it was probably best that Terry remained as the DoD commander, but there is nothing that says that an appropriate Come To Jesus sit down with Terry outlining the Custer issue, and telling him in no uncertain terms - You let that guy off a tight leash and your future employment opportunities are not as bright as I once thought them to be. That way it is exclusively Terry's responsibility and he rises or falls based on what he does, and more importantly he knows it.
I was never presented the same problem at that level of course, but there have been occasions where I have told a unit commander that one of his subordinates required strong "guidance", and in so doing left no doubt in that unit commander's mind who was going to kick the can if he did not get it.
I suspect that it is all a matter of trying to let those under you maintain their dignity and sense of worth, while at the same time trying to make sure the things that need getting done, get done. Sometimes it works. At other times not so much.
It's good to see Carl hereabouts. His presence is not nice to have. It is vital to have.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 21, 2015 22:27:55 GMT
Thanks QC.
It seems that choosing people based solely on seniority has some disadvantages. Would Terry have had the choice of turning it down because he wasn't the right man for the job.
If Sheridan had questions about Custer, why couldn't they have recalled Sturgis from his detached duty and put him in charge of the 7th? The Centennial Campaign was a major operation, not just sending a regiment out on patrol.
I agree it's great to see both Carl and AZ.
|
|