Why Wade Hampton and why don't we hear any of him to the degree we hear of Stuart, Sheridan and Forrest?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Why Wade Hampton and why don't we hear any of him to the degree we hear of Stuart, Sheridan and Forrest?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Unionblue,
Here's a post I did on my blog a couple of years ago that will, I hope, answer your question:
Last night, I gave a talk to the Raleigh (NC) Civil War Roundtable. I did a comparison and contrast of Wade Hampton and Jeb Stuart, and in the course of preparing the talk, I realized that the TRUE Wizard of the Saddle was not Nathan Bedford Forrest, for the reasons set forth below, but rather Wade Hampton.
Here are the reasons:
1. Unlike Forrest, Wade Hampton was THE quintessential subordinate officer. Always courtly and courteous, Hampton performed well as a subordinate. In fact, Robert E. Lee greatly regretted giving Hampton permission to leave the Army of Northern Virginia to go to South Carolina in 1865, and Joseph E. Johnston, the overall Confederate commander in the Carolinas, came to rely heavily on Hampton was his most trusted and most dependable subordinate, supplanting even William J. Hardee. In fact, Hampton designed the plan that Johnston used at Bentonville, and Hampton’s audacious attack at Monroe’s Crossroads permitted Hardee to successfully evacuate his Corps from Fayetteville and burn the Clarendon Bridge over the Cape Fear River before it fell into Sherman’s hands. In fact, Hampton, who did not particularly like Stuart, was unfailingly the loyal subordinate who could be depended upon in almost any capactiy.
2. Unlike Forrest, Hampton was the complete package. While a ferocious fighter–Hampton killed 13 Union soldiers in personal combat during the war and was severely wounded twice in battle, and wounded one other time in battle–Hampton also had a real talent for performing the traditional role of cavalry–scouting, screening, and reconnaissance. Hampton was actually quite good in all three of these roles–perhaps he learned and mastered the techniques from Stuart–and could be relied upon to perform whatever role he was needed in.
3. Unlike Forrest, Hampton regularly met and defeated the very best the Union cavalry had to offer. While Forrest was off facing the second team, Hampton was facing–and beating–the likes of Sheridan, Gregg, Merritt, Kilpatrick, Wilson, Custer, etc. Hampton never lost a major cavalry engagement where he commanded the Army of Northern Virginia’s Cavalry Corps.
4. Like Forrest, Hampton had no formal military training whatsoever, even though his grandfather had been a major general in the War of 1812, and both his father and grandfather had served in the cavalry. However, Hampton had a lot of native, natural talent, and became a feared and respected commander of horse as a result of his God-given talent.
5. Unlike Forrest, Hampton’s operations actually made a difference in the outcome of the war. Hampton’s truly decisive thrashing of Sheridan at Trevilian Station in June 1864 actually made Early’s Valley Campaign possible, and made it possible for the Confederacy to have an additional six months of life that it otherwise probably would not have had. Forrest’s operations were not much more than annoyances for the Union high command, like a larger-scale version of John S. Mosby’s partisans.
6. Hampton was THE highest ranking officer in all of the Confederate cavalry, ranking even Forrest and exceeding even the lamented Stuart in rank.
When I take all of these factors into account, it becomes clear to me that calling Nathan Bedford Forrest the Wizard of the Saddle is wrong. With all due respect to the late, great Shelby Foote, the TRUE Wizard of the Saddle was Wade Hampton, not Forrest.
I hope that answers your question.
Eric
__________________ “Cavalry is the whirlwind of war. Batteries thunder and crush - - infantry forms the conflicts, surge and shock, but it is the charge of horse - - a wild erratic horse - - that seems the very tempest of the strife. Half man, half brute, it knows no fear - - an awful swell of carnage and commotion - - a terrible, relentless deluge of trampling hoofs and hewing steel.”
My vote goes to Colonel John T. Wilder. I know that as commander of his "Lightning Brigade" of Mounted Infantry he may not qualify as the best cavalry commander, but in my view arming his brigade at his expense, and how his men had performed at Chickamauga were outstanding.
I'm all for Sheridan, look what he did in the Shenendoah in 64', breaking the economic infrastructure of the valley and his pursuit of Lee the next year was instrumental in the surrender. I think it was more his commanders than him making bad decisions and "Little Phil" was the best "true" cavalry man of the group.
P.S. nobody else got a battle tank named after them either!!
Going with Eric on this one. Hampton was, in my not so humble opinion, a better Cavalry commander than Stuart. Forrest did grand things, but Hampton worked with the army. And, after all, isn't that what a Cavalry is for? Sheridan was simply a fighting summagun and would have done as well as chief ordnance officer. He wasn't really Cavalry.
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 already voted for 'Other' on behalf of Philip Kearny, but I can't help but put a write-in for Benjamin Grierson, who was at least mentioned in somebody's post.
Why?:
His diversionary raid through Mississippi may have made the difference in Grant's Vicksburg campaign, which is considered by many the turning point of the war. Even if not, it was a masterful raid deep into enemy territory probably eclipsing any of those of the famous Morgan raids (which reminds me to ask why no one has suggested John Hunt Morgan in this thread?).
In addition, Grierson, who before he enlisted was a music teacher and band leader and was terrified of horses because of a childhood accident, post-war made the cavalry his career, serving honorably and effectively in the West. For his standing up for the Black "Buffalo Soldier" cavalry regiments and also having a sympathy and understanding of the American Indians, he was roundly criticized.
Grierson was not only a great Cavalry man, he was a great man
Will give you that Griesoh had his moment of glowy Adn that he went on to be a pretty doggone good commandrm but he does't get the "great."
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 guess that leaves Stuart, although my vote would be for Wade Hampton if it was a choice.
Eric
Good to see that Wade Hampton earned a mention from someone. He is undoubtedly one of the most underated cavalry leaders of the War. Could this be because he possessed no military training? (He was one of only three to attain the rank of Lt. General without a military education.) Was it because he was a South Carolinian and not a Virginian?
Read his history and I think you´d be surprised. His post-war political exploits are interesting as well.
Another name that is conspicuously missing is the ¨The Thunderbolt of the Confederacy¨, John Hunt Morgan.
Regards,
John W.
__________________ Ancestors in CSA Army: 51st VA, 54th VA, 45th VA, 50th VA, 24th VA
Here's your test:
Take each of the three mentioned (and maybe one or two of the others) and switch them around.
Would Sheridan have performed if in charge of Forrest's or Stuart's troops? (personally, I think so)
How about Forrest, could he have performed in Mississippi, Georgia, and Virginia? (I think out west maybe, but back east? not so certain. Part of being in command is relating to your peers, and right wrong or indifferent, this would have been a challenge anywhere but where he was, I think).
Stuart, I have read, was a very good match to place, time, and munitions. (was it D.S. Freeman who said this?) He might have done well, but I get the feeling that a chunk of his success was due to the personality of Lee smoothing waters now and then.
Hampton, I don't know. But the one unknown I'll claim on any of the confederate commanders (except Morgan )is that they generally operated within friendly territory, and territory that army members knew well.
Sheridan stands out because of this, especially, IMO, after Booneville.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
)is that they generally operated within friendly territory, and territory that army members knew well.
Linear Mode
