Wade Hampton vs JEB Stuart

[Hoplite]

We all have heard about JEB Stuart, literally a household name even if we don't know that much about the Civil War.
But was Wade Hampton actually a better Cavalry Corps commander? I think I read somewhere that he never lost a battle.

 

[trice]

We all have heard about JEB Stuart, literally a household name even if we don't know that much about the Civil War.
But was Wade Hampton actually a better Cavalry Corps commander? I think I read somewhere that he never lost a battle.

I'd say they were both very good.

Stuart was clearly more charismatic and comfortable with attention, well-liked, etc. Stuart showed strong abilities in intelligence functions. Stuart organized and built the cavalry of the ANV. In an emergency, he took over Jackson's Corps in the middle of Chancellorsville. He was, effectively, Lee's intelligence chief. He was also an excellent cavalry commander in the field.

Hampton became an excellent cavalry commander during the war (Stuart had the advantage of a West Point background and several years as a cavalry officer before the war (Mounted Rifles, then the 1st Cavalry). Always a determined fighter, Hampton's troops seemed more disciplined in combat. After the death of Stuart, the ANV cavalry might have become a bit more determined and hard-nosed in combat, particularly dismounted combat -- but they had been pretty good under Stuart as well. Maybe it was just the changing nature of the war in 1864.

In any case, if you are looking for a man to be the head of a cavalry force for the ANV, Hampton and Stuart would both be excellent choices, probably the two best the Confederates had for that position. If there was a third, it would be Forrest. There was somebody out west who was pretty good, but I don't see the background to judge him on for the ANV position. Wheeler, plain and simple, was not as good as Stuart, Hampton and Forrest.

All IMHO, of course.

 

[Woods-walker]

Interesting question- Iam interested to see what some others will have to say. As for me, I ve always admired Hampton. Stuart was bold (and personally I think cocky similar to Custer; but a better tactician than Custer or Hampton).
Not to change the subject but I ve often wondered what Lee didn't replace Stonwall Jackson with Stuart. He was a fantastic tactician.

 

[rpkennedy]

I'd say they were both very good.

Stuart was clearly more charismatic and comfortable with attention, well-liked, etc. Stuart showed strong abilities in intelligence functions. Stuart organized and built the cavalry of the ANV. In an emergency, he took over Jackson's Corps in the middle of Chancellorsville. He was, effectively, Lee's intelligence chief. He was also an excellent cavalry commander in the field.

Hampton became an excellent cavalry commander during the war (Stuart had the advantage of a West Point background and several years as a cavalry officer before the war (Mounted Rifles, then the 1st Cavalry). Always a determined fighter, Hampton's troops seemed more disciplined in combat. After the death of Stuart, the ANV cavalry might have become a bit more determined and hard-nosed in combat, particularly dismounted combat -- but they had been pretty good under Stuart as well. Maybe it was just the changing nature of the war in 1864.

In any case, if you are looking for a man to be the head of a cavalry force for the ANV, Hampton and Stuart would both be excellent choices, probably the two best the Confederates had for that position. If there was a third, it would be Forrest. There was somebody out west who was pretty good, but I don't see the background to judge him on for the ANV position. Wheeler, plain and simple, was not as good as Stuart, Hampton and Forrest.

All IMHO, of course.

It is an interesting question of whether or not Stuart would have performed as well as 1864 dragged on and the cavalry operations took on a decidedly different aspect, especially with the Union cavalry gaining more and more experience and skill.

Ryan

 

[rpkennedy]

Not to change the subject but I ve often wondered what Lee didn't replace Stonwall Jackson with Stuart. He was a fantastic tactician.

In short, Lee didn't trust any of his cavalry commanders like he trusted Stuart. He could not rely on someone not named Stuart to be the eyes and ears of the army.

Ryan

 

[trice]

In short, Lee didn't trust any of his cavalry commanders like he trusted Stuart. He could not rely on someone not named Stuart to be the eyes and ears of the army.

Ryan

Probably a bunch of reasons, but one of them was a grumbling that there were too many Virginians in high commands.

 

[Pollaco]

I would think the West Point background would give Stuart the edge. In Lee's eyes anyway.

 

[rpkennedy]

Probably a bunch of reasons, but one of them was a grumbling that there were too many Virginians in high commands.

Then the grumbling didn't work since the Second Corps and new Third Corps went to Virginians.

I believe that it had to do with Lee feeling that he couldn't spare Stuart from his job with the cavalry.

Ryan

 

[JerryD]

I'd say they were both very good.

Stuart was clearly more charismatic and comfortable with attention, well-liked, etc. Stuart showed strong abilities in intelligence functions. Stuart organized and built the cavalry of the ANV. In an emergency, he took over Jackson's Corps in the middle of Chancellorsville. He was, effectively, Lee's intelligence chief. He was also an excellent cavalry commander in the field.

Hampton became an excellent cavalry commander during the war (Stuart had the advantage of a West Point background and several years as a cavalry officer before the war (Mounted Rifles, then the 1st Cavalry). Always a determined fighter, Hampton's troops seemed more disciplined in combat. After the death of Stuart, the ANV cavalry might have become a bit more determined and hard-nosed in combat, particularly dismounted combat -- but they had been pretty good under Stuart as well. Maybe it was just the changing nature of the war in 1864.

In any case, if you are looking for a man to be the head of a cavalry force for the ANV, Hampton and Stuart would both be excellent choices, probably the two best the Confederates had for that position. If there was a third, it would be Forrest. There was somebody out west who was pretty good, but I don't see the background to judge him on for the ANV position. Wheeler, plain and simple, was not as good as Stuart, Hampton and Forrest.

All IMHO, of course.

Mostly agree, but will quibble about Forrest. He was brilliant in independent command, but was never able to play well with others. I tend to think his hot headedness and ego prevented him from being an effective subordinate. But on his own, he had no equal.

 

[trice]

Mostly agree, but will quibble about Forrest. He was brilliant in independent command, when was never able to play well with others. I tend to think his hot headedness and ego prevented him from being an effective subordinate. But on his own, he had no equal.

I'll both agree and disagree. There doesn't seem to be any reason to complain about Forrest's performance at Ft. Donelson or Shiloh. Forrest did very well under Van Dorn in 1863. Richard Taylor thought highly of him down in Mississippi-Alabama in 1864-65. Forrest eventually refused to serve under Wheeler and provoked an argument with Bragg to get out from under him.

Wheeler was undoubtedly a brave man, but he was a pretty bad commander for any independent mission and troops under his command had a tendency to wear down and break apart. Essentially, he got promoted because he was a Bragg supporter. Beauregard and Hood both kept seeking someone else (almost anyone else) to command the AoT cavalry in late 1864. Beauregard is particularly furious after Wheeler manages to completely miss Sherman leaving Atlanta (when Wheeler's entire job was to watch Sherman). Eventually, the Confederates deliberately promoted Wade Hampton over Wheeler's head in 1865 to place Hampton in command of Wheeler in the Carolinas.

As to Bragg, well, it is hard to be upset with someone who wanted to serve somewhere else than under Bragg. Bragg actually removed Forrest from a command three times during the war (in Forrest's view: in Kentucky, giving his brigade to Wheeler for a raid, after Chickamauga). In KY, Forrest was protesting the scattering of his force to the four winds when he was sent back to Tennessee -- this was just before Bragg was surprised by Buell's advance to Perryville.

 

[Jamieva]

He kept Stuart with the cavalry because he had 2 obvious candidates in Hill and Ewell, but at the time, there was no such option in the cavalry. So if you promote Stuart to infantry corps command, you take a big chance on your cavalry performance, and either hill or Ewell is stuck at divisor command and not happy about it.

 

[rupert822]

I think it is an interesting question as posed. Corps commander and cavalryman don't exactly mean the same thing. I'd say you don't need to look beyond the "he never brought me a bad piece of information" comment to declare Stuart the better cavalaryman. Corps command I'm not certain. Stuart did well at chancellorsville, but it seems to me his best days actually commanding the ANV cavalry was when it was still division size.

 

[scooter748driver]

I'm not sure who was the better cavalry commander although I admire the dash and daring of Stuart. My only "issue" withholding him is that he seemed to believe his own press which I think resulted in his far-ranging and tardy appearance at Gettysburg.

I do admire Hampton but more so as he seems a self-made man. Forming and equipping the "Hampton Legion" and his actions a First Manassas. While less flamboyant than Stuart, he seemed a solid, reliable commander.

 

[trice]

I'm not sure who was the better cavalry commander although I admire the dash and daring of Stuart. My only "issue" withholding him is that he seemed to believe his own press which I think resulted in his far-ranging and tardy appearance at Gettysburg.

I do admire Hampton but more so as he seems a self-made man. Forming and equipping the "Hampton Legion" and his actions a First Manassas. While less flamboyant than Stuart, he seemed a solid, reliable commander.

If we are talking about his military career, the self-made man moniker might very well fit. OTOH, Wade Hampton III is often called the wealthiest man in "the South" at the start of the Civil War (he was also apparently the largest single owner of slaves in the 1860 Census with 1,000+), from a family of money and political power.

Nathan Bedford Forrest was also a self-made man, both as a soldier and a pre-war millionaire. Of course, that money started with his career as a slave-trader, before he went respectable, became a Mississippi planter and a Memphis alderman.

Hampton, Forrest and Dick Taylor are probably the best of the civilian-to-high-commander generals on the Confederacy. Maybe another one or two like John B. Gordon and Pat Cleburne in the mix.

 

[Woods-walker]

In short, Lee didn't trust any of his cavalry commanders like he trusted Stuart. He could not rely on someone not named Stuart to be the eyes and ears of the army.

Ryan

Yea. His own son let him down at Spotsylvania CH.

 

[Cavalier]

In my opinion Hampton was one of the best of the civilians turned general in the Army of Northern Virginia, but better than Stuart, not in my opinion.

John

 

[Jamieva]

This might be an overly general simplistic view but I would view Stuart as the better at the scouting and intelligence gathering part of cavalry work. Hampton is superior on the tactical battlefield aspects of the job.

Just my very general 2 cents