Oh, I'm not leaving the camp! Should clarify, though. Cash makes a good point about Forrest operating as mounted infantry but I can't get around his clear usefulness as traditional cavalry or not consider him a cavalryman. He was the first to really use a strike force - his escort was remarkable and unlike any other escort - and he did scout, screen and reconnoiter as he was supposed to. His superiors often did not value him and often ignored him so...he often went off on his own hook. The biggest flaw in his soldiering was that he had not gotten the training that would teach him to suffer fools gladly...which he did not! The Union cavalry was undergoing some significant changes, though, and was more ready (and able) to change for the better than the Confederate, who maintained tradition, the cavalier style. Jeb Stuart was absolutely swords n roses all the way and he was very, very good. It was still a glorious occupation. Forrest was unique in his practical got-a-job-to-do approach. He saw nothing romantic about war, just a bad job someone had to do - and he was superb at it. Not superb at taking orders from dummies, though!
One thing I haven't seen noted about Custer is what he represented - the post-Civil War US cavalry. The war had really cleaned out stodgy old timers, moss-backed traditionalists and timid commanders - that made room for men like Grant to come forward and they were young. Grant doesn't get enough credit for letting his commanders think outside the box as well as himself. Sheridan, for example - Grant let him have his head many times, maybe from favoritism but also to see what he had in mind. You think you can do it, then go for it! Technology made huge changes, and so on. The heyday of the US cavalry was the Plains Wars but the last US cavalry charge - with horses - was in the Philippines during WWII.
Bringing the