I would have to say that General Sherman was instrumental in creating a cavalry as an independent force, verses a supporting force. It took General Grant to get the needed independence of the cavalry and under his control in a more 'massive' manner, not spotty assignments with the various corps commanders; which had happened along the 1861-1863 campaign. General Thomas, the Rock of Chickamauga was also a huge factor in the effective use of cavalry. He gets over looked also but, he really hammered the enemy with his cavalry.
General J.E.B. Stuart was a really good cavalry man in his own right. Col J. S. Mosby was under General J.E.B. Stuart's command and raided many places around Annandale, Fairfax, Alexandria, Manassass, Chantilly, Vienna and behind the lines--even capturing a General in Fairfax.
Reconnaissance was the main function as was it the case for the Union Cavalry. We are drawn to this, with the attention drawn to General Buford in the case of Gettysburg and his advanced videts/pickets and scouts.
However, I think due to President Lincoln's faith in General Grant's faith in General P. Sheridan; to take a larger mass of cavalry and use different regiments/brigades as one would use infantry--really changed the use of cavalry as a whole.
I think that in the Civil War, we see the real beginnings of what modern cavalry is today; a hard hitting, fast moving force.
J.E.B Stuart was able to take his cavalry on some pretty daring raids and in the first two years of the war, I would take his units over any of the U.S Cavalry units. They didn't have the capacity at that point. But by 1863, you really begin to see that they are coming of age, and Pleasanton has done some good reorganization of the cavalry, and they can hold their own, as was seen at Brandy Station, when Stuart almost got his tail handed to him by mostly Union cavalry.
Sheridan had alot of guts and cahones. He used the cavalry effectively in the Valley, and during his raid behind the Confederate lines during the Overland Campaign, he outfought the Confederates, and Stuart was subsequently killed in the engagement at Yellow Tavern. But one also must understand that it is the third year of the war, and the Confederate cavalry is running low on equipment and horseflesh, and they are tired. They fought valiantly, but against some pretty good union cavalry commanders with superior equipment and fresher horses. So I don't think they were going to win as much as they had been. Sheridan knew how to use cavalry.
Forrest, now there is a man that I would not want to meet on the field of battle. That man had some kinda tenaciousnes that no other cavalry general had. He earned his sobriquet "Wizard of the Saddle" and it was rightly earned. He was feared and he knew how to use what he had and he used it quite well. If he had been in the eastern theatre, I think it would have been a much tougher fight there for the Union forces, and the raids would have been much more devestating and hard hitting. If I were to put my money on any one cavalry general in the Civil War, North or South, it would be that Devil Forrest.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
If I were to put my money on any one cavalry general in the Civil War, North or South, it would be that Devil Forrest.
Both agree and disagree, J Man. Forrest took nothing at all and made it into a force that put the skeer on a great many Union commanders.
And here again I will advance that Forrest's primary value was to tie up Union garrisons and paralyze thousands of otherwise good men. He did do some highly admirable service -- especially during Hood's retreat from Nashville -- and proved his worth. However, he was essentially used inadequately. Just go raid somewhere, Nathan; don't bother me.
Realistically, he was on his own -- just go out and do your thing. Had he not been an ignorant slave trader and a wealthy planter and had gone to West Point, imagine what he could have done!
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
This is not to defend Forrest, though after about a decade of study, I'm leaning tenderly in that direction, Ole's line here seems a bit contradictory.
"Had he not been an ignorant slave trader and a wealthy planter and had gone to West Point, imagine what he could have done!"
How does a man of ignorance amass near $2m prior to the war? Selling black folks was part of his game, along with brothers, Aaron, John, William and Jeffrey, but he was a considerable businessman with hugh land holdings both in Mississippi and across the river in Arkansas. His lack of military knowledge of the time saved both his life and that of thousands of good southern boys on more than one occasion. Schoolin', he had little. His use of direct language served him well communicating with the folks within the sound of his voice at the time. He had folks hired to embellish the written stuff! A few, like Col. D. C Kelly were already quite literate. Had he gone to West Point, he would have met General Lee and Jefferson Davis, not to mention our ace general Hood. With a good West Point education in Napoleonic warfare, he would not have survived 1862.
__________________
Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
"Had he not been an ignorant slave trader and a wealthy planter and had gone to West Point, imagine what he could have done!"
Did not make myself clear with that, Larry. NBF didn't fit within the chivalrous. Was no way he could have been good enough to be one of them. Not an USMA grad? Not a Princeton grad? A peasant. And a trader.
I am well aware that you are not of that bent. But you do have to admit that there was a bit of snobbishness present in the CSA. (Not to say that there wasn't in the USA.) Forrest fooled them all. He had a natural gift, and I have to believe that the aristocrats resented him for showing them up. But the fools never managed to use him and his talents effectively.
After all, he was an ignorant trader.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I'm not sure how Stuart changed the role of cavalry in warfare. Picket duty, skirmish, screening and reconnaisance has always been the role of cavalry. Perhaps even more dramatic than anything Jeb Stuart did, was Eylau during the Napoleonic war where Murat's cavalry broke the Russian battle line. Raiding the enemy was nothing novel. Remember Tarleton and his British Legion did a lot of that in the Carolinas. The Federal cavalry Stuart fought was not well organized or used during the first two years of the war. Stuart fought well in command of Jackson's Corps after Jackson was injured.
Sheridan was also an able leader and like Stuart, proved flexible and was a star ascendant. He demonstrated that the Federal cavalry could conduct lengthy raids (OK, Grierson did it first) behind Confederate lines. He also whipped Early in the Valley and today would be known as the Comeback Kid. Sheridan demonstrated his ability to lead a very large independent command and a knack for teaching crows how to carry provisions when traveling through the Valley.
Forrest is amazing in that unlike Stuart or Sheridan, he was untutored in the ways of war. He was a natural fighter who proved capable of independent command yet able to subordinate himself to another (unless that other was half a man). Forrest could be defeated (and he was once), but his potential for higher command was only hinted at during the war. I'd put my money on Forrest.
Gary, I never read or heard of Sheridan using cows for
pack animals. Is that true? Tell me more.
Realistically, he was on his own -- just go out and do your thing. Had he not been an ignorant slave trader and a wealthy planter and had gone to West Point, imagine what he could have done!
Totally agree with you there ole. I think that if he had been given more attention and not left to his own devices, and been used properly, he would have been greater than he was. And you are spot on when you mention that if he had gone to West Point, he probably would have been given more attention by the high command. If you didn't go to the USMA, you weren't worthy of respect. I would say the same goes for Cleburne, though the reasons for his never getting corps or army command are a little different. But that is for another thread.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Did not make myself clear with that, Larry. NBF didn't fit within the chivalrous. Was no way he could have been good enough to be one of them. Not an USMA grad? Not a Princeton grad? A peasant. And a trader.
I am well aware that you are not of that bent. But you do have to admit that there was a bit of snobbishness present in the CSA. (Not to say that there wasn't in the USA.) Forrest fooled them all. He had a natural gift, and I have to believe that the aristocrats resented him for showing them up. But the fools never managed to use him and his talents effectively.
After all, he was an ignorant trader.
ole
A rather successful ignorant trader. A West Pointer, hardly.
__________________
Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Philip Kearny. "Kearny rode into battle with a sword in his right hand, pistol in his left, and the reins in his teeth, as was the style of the Chasseurs. His fearless character in battle earned him the nickname by his French comrades "Kearny le Magnifique" or "Kearny the Magnificent." Yes the French at one time were warriors.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
