Custer's Civil War Career

[nbforrest]

I've heard George Custer condemned as an empty headed fop, but my opinion of him is radically different. In fact, I would place him at the top (or just about at the top) of the list of cavalry division commanders to emerge from the war. I might even venture that he was one of the finest division commanders of any sort to emerge from the war. Any thoughts on Custer? The more I read about his Civil War career, the more I am convinced that he has been unfairly maligned and totally underrated by many. (I also think his post-war career is unfairly maligned, but I suppose this isn't the right forum to open up that can of worms)

Respectfully

[SpartanGSG]

I have read comments and suggestions that his contribution to the Union victory during the CW was enhanced over the years by his post CW notoriety. My two cents worth to the dialogue was that he was a formidable contibutor and more than a bit player of the new generation of horseman during the "coming of age" of federal cavalry during the 1863 campaigns as i am sure you can appreciate. No one can argue he helped bring a energizing elan to the cavalry arm that was sorely needed after the dismal performances of the first two years of the war.
Regards, Spartan

[nbforrest]

He certainly had plenty of hard charging gusto, but I have come to see that he had quite a bit of tactical skill as well. If one looks at his performances at Trevilian Station, Yellow Station, and Meadow Bridge, he demonstrated a great ability to effectively control a desperate situation. At the last two he saved Phil Sheridan's behind.

Respectfully

[SpartanGSG]

Those scrappy Wolverines behind him had something to do with it as well didnt they, as Stuart started to find out during the Gettysburg Campaign when he engaged Custer and Cols McIntosh and Irwin Gregg's Brigade.

[nbforrest]

Longacre's book on the Wolverine brigade is on my reading list but from what I've seen it's far from definitive (like pretty much all of Longacre's work). I would like to see a good history of some of Custer's Michigan outfits.

Respectfully

[texascavcadet]

Yah at Gettysburg he protected the left flank when Jeb Stuarts cavlary came around the flank on the third day.


I wonder what the situation would have been if Custer was defedning Gettysburg on the first day. He might have made a "Custer's Last Stand"

[SpartanGSG]

Originally Posted by texascavcadet

Yah at Gettysburg he protected the left flank when Jeb Stuarts cavlary came around the flank on the third day.


I wonder what the situation would have been if Custer was defedning Gettysburg on the first day. He might have made a "Custer's Last Stand"

I tend to feel the legend of Buford's actions on day one to engage Heath has grown to a certain extent over time. That said however, there was no replacement for the experience factor exhibited by the veteran cavalry commander in his very sound deployment of Devin,Gamble and Calef's arty during the key hours in the morning. One cannot help but think that Custer was not experienced enough at that stage of his career to match or exceed this level of command and control over the tactical situation, and that he would try to impetuously attack Heath, sacrificing his cavalry to buy time for Reynolds. but who knows?.

[whitworth]

Custer proved he was a good brigade cavalry commander, overseen by a division and corps commander.
Custer never rose to independently command a cavalry corps in the Civil War and he was passed over in early 1864 by Grant for a division command.

General James Harrison Wilson rose to higher rank and cavalry command, during the Civil War. His cavalry was integral to the great defeat of Hood at Nashville and he contributed to reducing the Army of the Tennessee to an ineffective command by late 1864.

Unlike Custer, Wilson had independent command of a cavalry corps in Alabama in 1865, against the likes of Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Nearly twenty-five years after Little Big Horn, Wilson was commanding American combat troops in Puerto Rico and China.

One, I think can accept, Custer as a good and heroic cavalry commander at the level of the brigade, but not accept Custer for the role of independent command. Did Custer rise above his abilities in his command at Little Big Horn? He never did get another chance to prove otherwise.

[ole]

Custer never did prove that he was anything more than a loose cannon to be released when the division or corps commander felt the need of a smashing blow. But in that slashing, smashing, hell-for-leather operation, he was rarely equalled. He was very useful at brigade command -- a classic example of avoiding the Peter principle.

Ole

[nbforrest]

I personally still see Custer as more talented than he is being given credit for. Was he hard charging? Absolutely. But did he blindly charge into places and win by sheer force? Absolutely not. If one examines his actions as a brigade commander, he was able to effectively control complex tactical situations. There were plenty of times when he handled his men very well. Trevilian Station is a great example. He kept control of a desperate situation and managed to extricate his brigade from a tough situation through a very skillfull defense (no blind charges there). His other successful actions as a brigade commander can't entirely be explained through bull headedness either. And he was very competent at the division level. I think his actions in July and August of 63 at head of a division showed enough skill that he should have been given a division in the 64 reorganization of the Cavalry Corps. That's one decision by Grant that I don't agree with, although I understand that to some extent Grant wanted fresh blood in the Cavalry Corps. And Custer's command of a division under Sheridan in the Shenandoah was also marked by talent. Wilson proved himself to be something of a failure as a division commander, with some rather extravagant missteps (the Wilderness and the Wilson-Kautz Raid come to mind). Certainly his actions in the West were better, and I think he became a competent commander, but it is easy to give Wilson too much credit. One can truthfully say that Wilson defeated Forrest. But that is very misleading. Forrest was handed a hopeless situation against Wilson's vastly superior force. Give Wilson credit, but I don't really see anything that would put him into the upper echelon of Union talent. To me, he seems to be one of the class of officers that rose through the ranks due to Grant's patronage rather than extreme competence. Was Custer a brilliant general, fit for a cavalry corps? Not at all. But I (and I seem to be in the minority here) see him as a very talented brigade and division commander whose skills went beyond simple courage. And I think an examination of his post war careers also reveals talent.

Respectfully