Should JEB Stuart commanded infantry?

[ole]

I don't entirely disagree, and I too see a pattern in Grant's choices, but perhaps with a bit more negative tinge. Generals like Sheridan and Sherman seem to have been chosen by Grant more on personal attachment and favoritism rather than any innate skill.

I'll kinda go along with that, except that you make personal attachment and favoritism sound bad. Grant's personal attachment and favoritism were lavished on those he trusted to get the job done. Not at all like the personal attachment and favoritism exercised by Jeff Davis.

Just a thought.
Ole

[nbforrest]

There is a good deal of truth in that, but I do think that Grant's favorites (who he did certainly trust) wouldn't have advanced that far if based solely on their skills. McPherson falls into the same camp. He was the favorite of Grant and then Sherman, but never really lived up to the trust Grant and Sherman put in him. But yes, Grant's choices certainly pale in comparison to Davis' meddling.

Respectfully

[r_moody]

As long as we remember that the role of a General is planning and the implementation of that plan. They cannot be held responsible for the performance of every regiment. Is the ammo where it needs to be? Are the reserve forces where they need to be? Placement of artillery and its reserves. These are the primary roles of a General.

ALL of the successful generals, no matter what side, understood logistics. Because no matter what your battle plans are you have to have the support in place BEFORE you attack. The break through at Chickamauga happened because Longstreet planned his reserve corp correctly and when opportunity showed he acted. Had there been no force in the right place Hood could not have called them up and siezed the opportunity.

Stuart understood what a general needed to do in advance and in time he would have proved to be a good infantry general.

Rick

[nbforrest]

I just think that saying Stuart would be a good infantry general is raw speculation. I'll admit my view is colored by my fairly low opinion of Stuart. He couldn't really handle his cavalry terribly well beyond his raiding, so I don't think he had a lot of promise as an infantry commander in a pitched fight.

Respectfully

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by milhistbuff1

What about Sheridan? Why did Grant give him command of the AOP cav. when he had only really commanded infantry?
Respectfully,
Matt

Because Sheridan was a very tough nut, that's why!

[ole]

I just think that saying Stuart would be a good infantry general is raw speculation. I'll admit my view is colored by my fairly low opinion of Stuart. He couldn't really handle his cavalry terribly well beyond his raiding, so I don't think he had a lot of promise as an infantry commander in a pitched fight.

That's exactly what I would have said, nb, if I had your perception. A could be, but not likely. Stuart made his flamboyant mark in the history books...much like Custer. An interesting focus for interesting stories. But not that much substance underlying the fluff.
Ole

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by rivrrat

I have always thought that Stewart was overrated.

I'll go with Riverat, aside from his spelling. Stuart was great at 'riding around' enemies and reviewing his troops (Brandy Station), but less successful in confronting them, more so as the war progressed and the Union cavalry came into it's own.

I might suggest that Stuart was a decent Cavalry general, but that his reputation is perhaps mainly based on that familiar romantic notion of the gallant Confederate cavalier, as he certainly played the part.

I might suggest that Turner Ashby, had he lived might have been a more effective cavalry commander in the East.

We all know(?) that Forrest was the best cavalryman in the CSA.

I don't see Stuart as a martinet, but by his dress, he meant to be noticed, and I think that part of that display figured into his image as one of the icons of the Confederacy.

[r_moody]

After the defeat of the AOT why didn't Lee call Forrest east to fight with the ANV? I have an opinion but I would like to hear everyone elses first, if I may?

Rick

[ole]

Originally Posted by r_moody

After the defeat of the AOT why didn't Lee call Forrest east to fight with the ANV? I have an opinion but I would like to hear everyone elses first, if I may?

Why would he? Forrest was a western commander who had no place in the eastern theater. No reason to call him east.
Ole

[r_moody]

I would think that Lee would want the best available and, if called, Forrest would have gone east. Many have called Stuart everything from poor to average, pompous and arrogant, but Lee seemed be quite satisfied with his performance. I am not going to call Stuart anything less than very good. Certainly Lee was happy with him.

My question remains, After the defeat of the AOT why didn't Lee call Forrest east to fight with the ANV?
Rick