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

In both cases Sheridan had a huge numerical advantage and was facing little, if any, of the ANV's cavalry which had remained with Lee. (Early had the cavalry normally assigned to the Valley.)

The Appomattox Campaign was certainly the right time to unleash Sheridan.



How did Stuart's death affect the Shenandoah Campaign?

He was dead. At that point, I don't think anyone could prevent the destruction of the Shenandoah Valley, but Hampton with Early would have put a major cramp in Sheridan's style. It would have been a critical delay, at least. Hampton would have been a nightmare for Sheridan. But, after Stuart's death, Hampton had to be with Lee.
 
The war continued after November 9, 1864 because of decisions made by Jefferson Davis and the military leaders of the Confederacy. You can disapprove of Phil Sheridan, and by extension Ulysses Grant and Abraham Lincoln, but the battles of Franklin, Nashville, Bentonville, Five Forks and Sailer's Creek, as well as the burning of Columbia, and the chaos of the abandonment of Richmond by the Condfederate government were all a direct consequence of the choices made by a small group of people.
It is a nice rhetorical flourish to shift the continuation of the war from the Confederate leadership to Phil Sheridan, but it is unpersuasive.

Whatever. Believe what you like. It's not my job to change your mind. Be wrong if you want.
 
The raids achieved their purpose and the cost was high. But Grant wanted the war carried to rear of the Army of Virginia and he was willing to pay a heavy cost to have the Confederate cavalry occupied elsewhere when the move to the James River occurred.
 
The raids achieved their purpose and the cost was high. But Grant wanted the war carried to rear of the Army of Virginia and he was willing to pay a heavy cost to have the Confederate cavalry occupied elsewhere when the move to the James River occurred.

The second sentence is correct. The first is not.

It is true that the Trevilian raid caused Lee to send two of this three divisions of cavalry after Sheridan, and it is true that Grant stole a march on Lee. In that sense, it repeated the tactic Grant used so successfully with the Grierson raid in 1863. But nobody would ever call the Trevilian Raid a success other than Sheridan. **Edited**


EDIT BY EJW: I protest the censoring of my post.
 
Last edited:
The Appomattox Campaign was certainly the right time to unleash Sheridan.

In fairness to Sheridan--and my thoughts on him are well-documented--the Appomattox Campaign was his finest hour, even if that finest hour was the direct result of another episode of insubordination by him. Grant ordered him to march to North Carolina--because Sherman had had enough of Kilpatrick and was begging for more cavalry--but Sheridan disobeyed the order and instead marched to Petersburg. He justified it by later writing, "I wanted to be in at the end." Never mind a little thing like disobeying a direct, written order to do so. And for the second time, Grant rewarded his insubordination by giving him an independent command.

Again, in fairness to Sheridan, the pursuit of Lee's army was the one and only time where he showed a killer instinct, and he was ruthless in running the Confederates down.
 
Last edited:
That’s interesting. I searched both of my Grant books hoping to find his thoughts on the raid and found none. I guess it helps to own the right books.

[Edit]. It appears Chernow’s writing answers you OP. Grant does not appear the least bit remiss concerning the loss of his Cavalry during this time frame. In fact Grant applauds Sheridan’s performance.

I’d be courious to read footnotes 67 and 68. His sources would be interesting to learn.

I will look these footnotes up, as they might lead us to interesting places. Many of Chernow's sources are based on other books, so we may find ourselves digging through layers to find the Primary Source.
 
Thank you for contributing @Eric Wittenberg , your expertise is appreciated. All I can do at this point is quote passages from books without the familiarity with the whole picture. Little Phil works very well as reference material, so I will do some more review on Sheridan's insubordination & Trevilian Raid.
 
Thank you for contributing @Eric Wittenberg , your expertise is appreciated. All I can do at this point is quote passages from books without the familiarity with the whole picture. Little Phil works very well as reference material, so I will do some more review on Sheridan's insubordination & Trevilian Raid.

Bee, I seem to recall signing a copy of Glory Enough for All: Sheridan's Second Raid and the Battle of Trevilian Station for you. You will get all the detail you could possibly want there.

The episode of Sheridan's insubordination of Meade on May 7, 1864 is laid out in there, as well as in Little Phil. So, too, is the issue of Sheridan's 1865 insubordination.
 
Last edited:
Bee, I seem to recall signing a copy of Glory Enough for All: Sheridan's Second Raid and the Battle of Trevilian Station for you. You will get all the detail you could possibly want there.

The episode of Sheridan's insubordination of Meade on May 7, 1864 is laid in there, as well as in Little Phil. So, too, is the issue of Sheridan's 1865 insubordination.

That's correct! I DO have Glory Enough for All: Sheridan's Second Raid and the Battle of Trevilian Station!!

( Pretty bad when someone remembers what is in your library better than you)

Thank you. I will look this up when I get home :smile:
 
Again, in fairness to Sheridan, the pursuit of Lee's army was the one and only time where he showed a killer instinct, and he was ruthless in running the Confederates down.
Well, one might also include Missionary Ridge where his (with others) disobedience of orders resulted in a complete defeat of Bragg's forces. To suggest that"... the pursuit of Lee's army was the one and only time where he showed killer instinct..." might cause one to use Sheridan's words to a Confederate gunner at Chattanooga "...that was damned ungenerous of you!"
 
Well, one might also include Missionary Ridge where his (with others) disobedience of orders resulted in a complete defeat of Bragg's forces. To suggest that"... the pursuit of Lee's army was the one and only time where he showed killer instinct..." might cause one to use Sheridan's words to a Confederate gunner at Chattanooga "...that was ****ed ungenerous of you!"

Let me qualify my statement, then. The pursuit of Lee's army was the one and only time where he showed killed instinct once he was promoted above divisional command. That's really what I was referring to when I made my original statement. Thanks for the clarification.

But you are quite correct in noting the ongoing thread of insubordination in this man's life--which first manifested itself at West Point and got him kicked out for a year. He did it again at Perryville, when he was under orders not to bring on a general engagement, but did anyway. There's an extremely well documented history of such conduct.
 
The pursuit of Lee's army was the one and only time where he showed killed instinct once he was promoted above divisional command. That's really what I was referring to when I made my original statement. .
I understood that Eric, and I certainly understand your well made point, just couldn't resist the moment to gig you a bit. No harm no foul--I hope.
 
He was dead. At that point, I don't think anyone could prevent the destruction of the Shenandoah Valley, but Hampton with Early would have put a major cramp in Sheridan's style. It would have been a critical delay, at least. Hampton would have been a nightmare for Sheridan. But, after Stuart's death, Hampton had to be with Lee.

So you're saying that Lee would have given Stuart more leeway and freedom of movement than he did with Hampton? He would have been willing to dispatch cavalry under Stuart to the Shenandoah whereas he was not willing to dispatch the same men under the same conditions because they were commanded by Hampton?
 
So you're saying that Lee would have given Stuart more leeway and freedom of movement than he did with Hampton? He would have been willing to dispatch cavalry under Stuart to the Shenandoah whereas he was not willing to dispatch the same men under the same conditions because they were commanded by Hampton?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Grant and Lee were in their cobra-mongoose phase - and both knew how dangerous the other was. Lee would have retained Stuart but probably would have sent Hampton to support Early. Hampton was very good. It would have been interesting, at least. Sheridan had a habit of not engaging cavalrymen he feared - always with a good excuse at hand, of course. (Sorry, I just can't scare up much in favor of Sheridan!)
 
The war continued after November 9, 1864 because of decisions made by Jefferson Davis and the military leaders of the Confederacy. You can disapprove of Phil Sheridan, and by extension Ulysses Grant and Abraham Lincoln, but the battles of Franklin, Nashville, Bentonville, Five Forks and Sailer's Creek, as well as the burning of Columbia, and the chaos of the abandonment of Richmond by the Condfederate government were all a direct consequence of the choices made by a small group of people.
It is a nice rhetorical flourish to shift the continuation of the war from the Confederate leadership to Phil Sheridan, but it is unpersuasive.


You're missing the big picture by making this conclusion. Sheridan doing his job correctly would speed up the process sof Lee having to bail from Petersburg. It starts a domino effect that works in the Confederacy's benefit for a while.
 
You're missing the big picture by making this conclusion. Sheridan doing his job correctly would speed up the process sof Lee having to bail from Petersburg. It starts a domino effect that works in the Confederacy's benefit for a while.
I understand that view. However, once Lee was stationary at Richmond and Petersberg, it was highly likely that he was going to have to detach a force to occupy the Shenandoah Valley, to that the detached force could subsist from that region and protect the harvest.
Some operation similar to the one undertaken by Sheridan in Sept. and Oct. of 1864 was going to happen to destroy that part of the harvest that could be shipped to Richmond and to neutralize Mosby's raiders.
 
Sheridan had a habit of not engaging cavalrymen he feared

Which would change Sheridan's behavior not Lee's.

I'm still not understanding your earlier post:

After disposing of Stuart, Sheridan was able to carry out his highly successful Shenandoah Valley campaigns.

How would Stuart being alive in command vs Stuart dead & Hampton in command change how the Valley Campaign was conducted, by either side?
 
Which would change Sheridan's behavior not Lee's.

I'm still not understanding your earlier post:



How would Stuart being alive in command vs Stuart dead & Hampton in command change how the Valley Campaign was conducted, by either side?

Oh, that's what you mean! Well, I don't think Sheridan could match Stuart on his best day, and Stuart would have made a heck of an obstacle of himself. So would Hampton. Neither of them was available and Early was mostly on his own.
 
Back
Top