Was it Worth it: Grant Allows Sheridan to Leave AoP to Hunt Stuart

Bee

Captain
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
In an examination of what went wrong with reconnaissance during the Overland Campaign, the absence of screening and protecting by Sheridan's cavalry cannot be overlooked. Meade recognized the need, but Grant cut Sheridan loose to hunt Stuart. Was the prize worth the sacrifice?
 
Last edited:
Yes! Grant, like all great generals, could lay an egg every so often and letting Sheridan gallop off into the distance with all the cavalry was one of them. All that worthy accomplished was killing Jeb Stuart. And...that single accomplishment was worth it. Stuart was invaluable to Lee, and irreplaceable. "He never brought me a single piece of bad information," Lee said. Lee was almost psychic in his ability to correctly analyze that accurate information.
 
In my opinion, no. Stuart's loss was a blow to confederate morale, but he was eventually replaced by Wade Hampton, who was arguably as good, and some might say better.

Wade Hampton sure was excellent, and the best to replace Stuart. But he didn't have the same rapport and connection with Lee that Stuart had. That's why I suggest Lee had come to rely on Stuart personally much too much.
 
Thanks @Bee for starting this thread. I'm very interested in seeing what everybody has to say.

Right now, I'd say no. I do not believe the loss of Stuart, while a blow to Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia, compensated for the loss of reconnaissance in the Army of the Potomac.

That is my opinion currently and am open to being persuaded otherwise. And I am looking forward to reading Little Phil on this topic. Amazon promises delivery early next week.
 
Wade Hampton sure was excellent, and the best to replace Stuart. But he didn't have the same rapport and connection with Lee that Stuart had. That's why I suggest Lee had come to rely on Stuart personally much too much.
I would agree Stuart seems to have some rapport or connection to Lee that Hampton doesn't have, and that Hampton was an excellent replacement, however not sure the rapport or connection made Stuart worth killing at any cost. if anything Lee was perhaps over reliant on Stuart which made Stuart somewhat a mixed bag in spite of the rapport..........
 
I would agree Stuart seems to have some rapport or connection to Lee that Hampton doesn't have, and that Hampton was an excellent replacement, however not sure the rapport or connection made Stuart worth killing at any cost. if anything Lee was perhaps over reliant on Stuart which made Stuart somewhat a mixed bag in spite of the rapport..........

I think my problem with Sheridan riding off to do this was Grant just shrugged his shoulders and said go do it - which gives me the feeling he didn't fully understand the use of cavalry - and that Sheridan did it with a glory seeking idea of catching Stuart and 'whipping him out of his boots'. That wasn't easy to do. Apparently Little Phil was all hat and not much cattle because he took everything there was with him to do this! (He also got Bragg to chew his fingernails some...but didn't scare him enough to give Stuart a little help.) Meade was right to protest and Grant should not have stepped on his head to okay it.

I'm thinking 'killing at any cost' and 'was it worth it' are different evaluations. Lee had lost a lot of very good commanders and losing this one was really a blow. And, Stuart's death was the only way Sheridan could justify not being there when he was needed. The first evaluation would need a stronger mission, which Sheridan more or less supplied, than simply giving Stuart a 3x6 piece of real estate.
 
I agree with the consensus that concludes that Sheridan's adventure was misguided. Quoting form Gordon Rhea:

"In the larger picture, Sheridan's raid proved to be a costly mistake. Chasing Stuart was another side show for the campaign, which would be decided by what the armies did at Spotsylvania. By abandoning the main theater of conflict to pursue his whimsical raid south, Sheridan deprived Grant of an important resource. His victory at Yellow Tavern offered scant solace to the blue-clad soldiers hunkering in trenches above the courthouse town. Sheridan's absence hurt Grant at Spotsylvania in much the same way that Stuart's absence from Gettysburg had handicapped Lee."
 
Grant wasn't as preemptive of Meade in this incident as you suggest. Sheridan was new to Meade but well known to Grant in terms of his, Sheridan's leadership ability. Grant "suggested" that Sheridan be given a opportunity and Meade acceded to that suggestion.
"The Army of the Potomac had used cavalry for couriers, scouting, and headquarters guards for most of its existence, only Joe Hooker had contemplated using them in an aggressive fashion, and Meade had largely continued established practice. Sheridan objected and told Meade that he could "whip Stuart" if Meade let him. Meade reported the conversation to Grant, who replied, "Well, he generally knows what he is talking about. Let him start right out and do it." Meade deferred to Grant's judgment and issued orders to Sheridan to "proceed against the enemy's cavalry" and from May 9 through May 24, sent him on a raid toward Richmond, directly challenging the Confederate cavalry.[18]" Wiki.
 
The United States Cavalry was learning to fight as an independent command, and this operation was part of the process.
The first three raids did not go extremely well, but by September 1864 the cavalry was ready to fight and it made a difference.
Furthermore, there was a direct political purpose. Sheridan was Irish and the son of immigrants. If even a few New York Irish immigrant voters were influenced by Sheridan's exploits it could be critical. Either Sheridan would become a hero, or he would become a casualty.
Third, the raids turned all of Virginia into a battleground. Livestock, and forage were consumed in a gradual process of destroying as much of the Virginia economy as possible.
Next, the Confederates had trouble replacing mounts and shipping forage for the cavalry mounts and the army horses.
Gradually the Confederate cavalry shrank and the Confederate armies became less able to move their artillery.
When came time to move to the James River, Grant and Meade could get a more disciplined raid from cavalry as a distraction from the move.
If the cavalry of the two armies had to fight, it was better for the United States forces to be raiding Virginia, than to have the Confederate cavalry raiding the logistics areas of the Army of the Potomac, which occurred anyway early in the fall of 1864.
 
Last edited:
Grant wasn't as preemptive of Meade in this incident as you suggest. Sheridan was new to Meade but well known to Grant in terms of his, Sheridan's leadership ability. Grant "suggested" that Sheridan be given a opportunity and Meade acceded to that suggestion.
"The Army of the Potomac had used cavalry for couriers, scouting, and headquarters guards for most of its existence, only Joe Hooker had contemplated using them in an aggressive fashion, and Meade had largely continued established practice. Sheridan objected and told Meade that he could "whip Stuart" if Meade let him. Meade reported the conversation to Grant, who replied, "Well, he generally knows what he is talking about. Let him start right out and do it." Meade deferred to Grant's judgment and issued orders to Sheridan to "proceed against the enemy's cavalry" and from May 9 through May 24, sent him on a raid toward Richmond, directly challenging the Confederate cavalry.[18]" Wiki.

I think if I was Meade, I probably wouldn't really take that remark as a suggestion. It's sort of like if Grant asked him to dinner - it would be an invitation but I don't think Meade would consider it something he could decline! That's what I meant when I said Grant stepped on Meade's head - Sheridan knew Grant would be told this conversation because he and Meade were more than a little irritating to each other, and Grant would likely be favorable to Sheridan's side of it.
 
You folks are bringing up some excellent points. I've pondered this question all day. One year prior, Jackson was killed, Longstreet was seriously wounded during the fighting in the Wilderness just days before. Was Grant's decision to allow Sheridan to go on a raid with the purpose of drawing Stuart out in the open as reckless as some may think? I'm still undecided. Stuart's death was yet another major blow. The ANV was becoming demoralized. Lee himself was showing signs of desperation. "Lee to the rear" was chanted on more than one occasion.

Grant was pounding Lee's lines relentlessly, Sherman was hard at it in Atlanta. The Confederacy was becoming more and more demoralized. Maybe more importantly, the southern people were becoming more and more demoralized. Stuart's death may not have been the catastrophic blow to the military and seem pail in comparison to the loss of cavalry to the AOP. I seem to gravitate toward the intangible effect Stuart's death had on the overall picture. Worth it? You decide. The last of Lee's Giants had fallen :smile: I'd say Sheridan may have unwittingly and self-servingly struck a much larger blow than he or Grant could have imagined.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for this thoughtful, informative reply @War Horse ! I usually start threads on topics that I am uninformed on, therefore, looking for a quick boost from others' knowledge. You never disappoint :smile:
Thanks Bee, this may be a little off topic and I hope you will forgive me. While reviewing some of my books on this topic, I came across an authors opinion, I found very interesting. The author credits Lincoln’s re-election to Lee’s stiff resistance during the Overland Campaign. (I’ve always argued it was the fall of Atlanta). This author feels had Grant have defeated Lee rather quickly, Grant would have most likely found himself as the republican nominee Again, very thought provoking.
 
Last edited:
I think my problem with Sheridan riding off to do this was Grant just shrugged his shoulders and said go do it - which gives me the feeling he didn't fully understand the use of cavalry

What experience did Grant have with cavalry in 1862-1863? Grierson's Raid helped at Vicksburg, CSA raids hurt Grant's logistics. Cavalry was a non-factor at Shiloh and Chattanooga.
 
Back
Top