Should JEB Stuart commanded infantry?

[ole]

Lee had available to him a number of proven, eastern cavalry commanders. There would be no reason to summon a westerner unknown to Lee except by reputation. If Lee knew anything about Forrest, he knew that the man was a raider and not a traditional cavalry commander. Lee needed his traditional -- he didn't need a hell-bent raider.
Ole

[nbforrest]

Lee would not have had the authority to call Forrest east until very late in the war. He couldn't have even if he wanted to until nearly the war's end.
Lee didn't really need a raider anyway. He had a great cavalry corps commander in Hampton in 64 and after Hampton was dispatched South, Lee wasn't in a position to be making Forrest-style raids. Although I do think that Hampton's departure left a command void in the ANV's cavalry at the war's end that affected its effectiveness. Of course, it didn't really matter at that point.

Respectfully

[r_moody]

I agree completely with both Ole and NBForrest. IMO Forrest would not have fared well under Lee's command structure as West Point style cavalry operations were not his strong point. For Lee, Hampton was the ideal cavalry commander. Forrest was really the pioneer of mounted infantry fighting and not a true cavalry officer. Had Forrest had access to repeating rifles and ammunition the war could have had a much different result. BTW I think that Lee could have had anyone he wanted. All he had to do was lean on Davis a little and he would have had anything.

Rick

[ole]

Had Forrest had access to repeating rifles and ammunition the war could have had a much different result.

But Forrest did have access to all the repeating rifles the Union could supply. Unfortunately, about 40 rounds later, they were useless. Definitely agree that could have had him if he wanted him. NB is correct in that he couldn't have ordered him to report east, but if Lee wanted him, Davis would have summoned him. (Maybe not. Hmmmmm?) At any rate, I still don't think Lee had any inclination to have Forrest under his command.

Next question: Would Forrest have gone if summoned?
Ole

[nbforrest]

I only remember bits of this quote, but wasn't Lee asked who was the greatest cavalry leader of the war and he replied something like"A man I have never had the pleasure to meet, Nathan Forrest"?
Anyone else remember this story?
If it's true Lee obviously held Forrest highly but didn't see the military need to send him east.
I still can't help but think that Stuart might have flourished had he been given an independent command he could take on raids.

Respectfully

[ole]

NB:
That's an oft-quoted line, but I don't recollect anywhere that it has been substantiated. Doesn't sound like Lee to me -- Greatest General, Forrest -- nah.

Stuart would have certainly done some major damage had he been given an independent command and turned loose to raid -- he'd have loved that: the plumed cavalier smiting left and right. Fame and glory to the max.

But, that wasn't Lee's style. Maybe he saw the minimal damage (maximal consternation) Forrest actually did with that activity in the west. Maybe his use of the cavalry was the one he found most valuable militarily. By Petersburg, the time had passed. The only gain available was to disrupt supply, and that would have beyond the capabilities of Stuart -- or even Forrest.

Fun discussion, 'though.
Ole

[nbforrest]

I don't think the situation in the East required big time raiders. The reason Forrest was successful is that he had long Union supply lines to attack. The AOP did not have those lines, using places like Aquia Creek, White House Landing, etc. Forrest's greatest raiding achievements were in disrupting the supply lines of Union armies ****her afield.

Respectfully

[ole]

Exactly.

Ole

[r_moody]

Originally Posted by ole

But, that wasn't Lee's style. Maybe he saw the minimal damage (maximal consternation) Forrest actually did with that activity in the west. Maybe his use of the cavalry was the one he found most valuable militarily. By Petersburg, the time had passed. The only gain available was to disrupt supply, and that would have beyond the capabilities of Stuart -- or even Forrest.

Fun discussion, 'though.
Ole

I still think that Stuart would have made the transition to infantry commander though his service was best on the horse.
I agree with the above posting because Grant wanted to use the rivers and ocean inlets as much as possible. It kept the trains short and freed more men up for fighting. Once Petersburg was reached Grant had a huge logistic advantage. Ships were bringing in siege guns and all the ammo one could use. He really had Lee boxed in and could afford to be patient. Some similarities to Vicksburg though Grant had Vicksburg surrounded. I have never been to Petersburg so I have always wondered if the rail bridges were out of range?

Rick

[nbforrest]

Grant's whole strategy was based on severing the supply lines to Petersburg. The Weldon RR was seized below Petersburg in August but the Southside wasn't knocked out, for all intents and purposes, until Lee evacuated Petersburg. Grant on the other hand had no such danger to his rail lines. The military railroad from City Point was close to his defensive lines, ensuring its safety. Grant did send Wilson and Kautz ****her afield to hit the railroads during the Petersburg campaign, but that was just one big fiasco.

Respectfully