Alfred Pleasonton. Why the boot?

[BillO]

IMO he seemed to do a pretty good job and he whipped poor old Jebs' butt so how did he manage to get himself canned and where did he end up.

 

[diane]

I thought it was because he didn't destroy Stuart. Not sure he had that opportunity, really. And Meade didn't consider his scouting and intelligence gathering to be up to snuff. Last but not least, Grant liked Sheridan a whole lot!

 

[E_just_E]

Pleasonton almost got fired by Hooker for incompetence after Brandy Station. His generals severely disliked him and did not thing much of him. Meade knew that reputation and kept a short leash on him. After he was fired he was transferred to the Trans-Mississippi theater with base at St. Louis

 

[BillO]

I thought it was because he didn't destroy Stuart. Not sure he had that opportunity, really. And Meade didn't consider his scouting and intelligence gathering to be up to snuff. Last but not least, Grant liked Sheridan a whole lot!

If it's even possible that just lowers my opinion of Grant.

 

[BillO]

There's no gotcha here folks. I'm genuinely curious. Compared to the AoP's use of cavalry prior to Pleasonton he seems to have gotten them organized quite well. I haven't read or even heard of any books dealing with the AoP cavalry early war other than as a foil for Stuart.

 

[E_just_E]

There's no gotcha here folks. I'm genuinely curious. Compared to the AoP's use of cavalry prior to Pleasonton he seems to have gotten them organized quite well. I haven't read or even heard of any books dealing with the AoP cavalry early war other than as a foil for Stuart.

It was Hooker's doing not Pleasonton's. For all practical purposes the Union Cavalry during McClellan and Stoneman was a pretty mess. Hooker organized them into a division and fired Stoneman (who was even more inept than Pleasonton, albeit being Stonewall Jackson's West Point Roommate.) The best thing the Pleasonton did was to promote young and energetic brigadier generals. Really, Buford should had Pleasonton's job...

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

There's a very simple reason for it. For one thing, Pleasonton was known as a lead-from-the-rear sort of fellow who had a very severe allergy to telling the truth. The man was a pathological liar, exceeded only by Phil Sheridan as an accomplished liar.

Pleasonton was also known to be an intriguer and perhaps THE most ambitious officer in the entire army. Pleasonton was known to be actively campaigning to be appointed the commander of the Army of the Potomac during the winter of 1863-1864. Despite that fact, George Gordon Meade was loyal to Pleasonton, largely because Pleasonton had served as his de facto chief of staff for the the third day of the Battle of Gettysburg after Butterfield was wounded, and then until A. A. Humphreys was appointed to the position on July 10, 1863.

Pleasonton had so alienated alienated the rest of the AoP officer corps by the end of 1863 that nobody but Meade wanted him around.

When he was called to testify before the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War during the Gettysburg hearings in the winter of 1864, Pleasonton lied and testified that he told Meade, in the wake of the repulse of the Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble attack, "General, I will give you one hour to prove yourself a great general and order a counterattack." He added to the lie by suggesting that Meade did not have the backbone to order a counterattack, but that had Pleasonton been in command of the army, he would have done so. In short, he stabbed his patron, Meade, in the back.

Not surprisingly, this infuriated Meade, who withdrew his support for Pleasonton, who then became a scapegoat for the epic failure of the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid. When Grant came east, he asked Meade's opinion about retaining Pleasonton in command, and Meade demurred. Consequently, Pleasonton was unceremoniously relieved of command and sent to a backwater of the water, Missouri, to join another of Grant's exiles, William S. Rosecrans.

Ironically, Pleasonton actually did quite well in command of Rosecrans' cavalry during the Sterling Price Raid, where, for once, he actually commanded his troops in the field. They inflicted one of the most severe losses sustained by the Confederates during the entire war at Mine Creek, Kansas in October 1864.

Pleasonton was a liar, a toady, and an intriguer. He suffered from rampant xenophobia. He was not a battlefield commander at all. The one thing he brought to the AoP Cavalry Corps was a good eye for talent, and the promotions of Judson Kilpatrick, Wesley Merritt, George Custer, and Elon Farnsworth during his tenure were his legacy to the Union cavalry.

In an 1875 interview to the San Francisco Chronicle given just before his death, Joe Hooker stated that had he known how good John Buford was, he would have appointed him to command the AoP Cavalry Corps. It's a shame that never happened, but it also couldn't have without Buford being promoted to major general first. Pleasonton ranked him as a brigadier general by about a week. The only one of the subordinate officers in the Cavalry Corps who outranked Pleasonton was George D. Bayard, who was mortally wounded at the Battle of Fredericksburg. One can only wonder what would have happened had the dashing young Bayard succeeded Stoneman in command of the Cavalry Corps instead of Pleasonton. By virtue of seniority, Bayard would have been entitled to the command.

By the way, whoever said that Pleasonton was nearly fired after Brandy Station--that is simply not true.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

There's no gotcha here folks. I'm genuinely curious. Compared to the AoP's use of cavalry prior to Pleasonton he seems to have gotten them organized quite well. I haven't read or even heard of any books dealing with the AoP cavalry early war other than as a foil for Stuart.

Sadly, it's out of print and difficult to find, but I wrote that book a number of years ago. It was titled The Union Cavalry Comes of Age: Hartwood Church to Brandy Station, and it covers the first half of 1863. There's also the first volume of Stephen Z. Starr's epic trilogy on the Union cavalry, published by the Louisiana State University Press, and fortunately, still in print and readily available. I recommend it to you, even though it's a bit dated.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

It was Hooker's doing not Pleasonton's. For all practical purposes the Union Cavalry during McClellan and Stoneman was a pretty mess. Hooker organized them into a division and fired Stoneman (who was even more inept than Pleasonton, albeit being Stonewall Jackson's West Point Roommate.) The best thing the Pleasonton did was to promote young and energetic brigadier generals. Really, Buford should had Pleasonton's job...

Actually, Hooker organized them into a 12,000 man CORPS, not a division, in February 1863.

I am not sure that I agree that Stoneman was inept. In fact, he was an excellent administrator and organizer, and a superb logistician. He was a career cavalryman, and was very capable. He was, unfortunately, over his head as a corps commander early in the war. However, his March-April 1865 raid was a spectacular success.

 

[E_just_E]

However, his March-April 1865 raid was a spectacular success.

Indeed. One of the few Generals on either side to have a song written about them (and a hit song nevertheless) 100-some years after the fact, because of that raid.

 

[BillO]

Sadly, it's out of print and difficult to find, but I wrote that book a number of years ago. It was titled The Union Cavalry Comes of Age: Hartwood Church to Brandy Station, and it covers the first half of 1863. There's also the first volume of Stephen Z. Starr's epic trilogy on the Union cavalry, published by the Louisiana State University Press, and fortunately, still in print and readily available. I recommend it to you, even though it's a bit dated.

Sounds good. Thanks for the information. "Ask and you will receive. Seek and you will find."

 

[67th Tigers]

Actually, Hooker organized them into a 12,000 man CORPS, not a division, in February 1863.

This is simply a formalisation of McClellan's earlier reorganisation.

On the Peninsula McClellan had 7 regiments of cavalry. He organised it into a cavalry reserve of 2 brigades after providing a regiment to each of his corps. When he was authorised a reorg into five corps he wangled another two regiments out of the war department, and an extra for the reserve.

In June '62 his 10 regiments were organised thus:

2nd Corps: 8th Illinois Cav
3rd Corps: 3rd Pennsylvania Cav
4th Corps: 5th Pennsylvania Cav
5th Corps: 4th Pennsylvania Cav
6th Corps: 1st NY Cav
1st Bde, Cav Reserve: 5th US, 6th US and 6th Pennsylvania
2nd Bde, Cav Reserve: 1st US and 8th Pennsylvania

In July McClellan issued an order centralising all his cavalry into a new "Cavalry Division" of two large brigades.

When withdrawn to defend Washington McClellan incorporated Pope's cavalry and some extras, adding the following regiments:

3rd Indiana Cav (from Pope)
1st Massachusetts Cav (from James Island, SC)
9th NY Cav (from Pope)
12th Pennsylvania (from Washington Defences)
8th NY Cav (from Railroad Bde, Middle Dept)

and the following were leftover from Pope and placed on the Rappahanock

1st Maine Cav
1st NJ Cav
2nd NY Cav
10th NY Cav
1st Pennsylvania Cav

In November McClellan's cavalry had the following structure, which Burnside retained, simply assigning the 3 independent formations to separate Grand Divisions:

Buford - Chief of Cavalry

Pleasonton's Division (2 brigades)

Farnsworth's Brigade
8th Illinois Cav
3rd Indiana Cav
8th NY Cav
A Bty, 2nd US Arty

Gregg's Brigade
6th NY Cav
8th Penn. Cav
6th US Cav
M Bty, 2nd US Arty

---

Averell's Brigade
1st Mass. Cav
3rd Penn. Cav
4th Penn. Cav
5th US Cav
B/L Bty, 2nd US Arty

Bayard's Brigade (on the Rappahanock)
1st Maine Cav
1st NJ Cav
2nd NY Cav
10th NY Cav
1st Penn. Cav
C/G bty, 3rd US Arty

Bayard was left (as Halleck required) on the Rappahanock, and Pleasonton's Division and Averell's Brigade were used in a series of coup de mains and blocking movements in McClellan's overland campaign that he was conducting when relieved. Burnside took these three existing formations and assigned them to his three Grand Divisions.

Thus when relieved he had 10 cavalry regiments with his main army. The "Cavalry Corps" formed in Feb '63 with 26 regiments. Mostly he didn't have enough cavalry to form a corps. The new regiments were:

9th NY Cav: from Washington Defenses (shows up as cavalry brigade, Reserve Grand Division in Jan '63)
17th Pa Cav: new regiment (shows up as cavalry brigade, Reserve Grand Division in Jan '63)
4th NY Cav: as 9th NY Cav (shows up as cavalry brigade, Reserve Grand Division in Jan '63)
6th OH Cav: from Washington Defences (shows up as cavalry brigade, Reserve Grand Division in Jan '63)
1st RI Cav: as 9th NY Cav (assigned Averill's Bde in Jan '63)
16th Pa Cav: from Washington Defences (assigned Averill's Bde in Jan '63)
12th Il Cav: escaped from Harper's Ferry, refitted at Washington
1st Md Cav: ditto (shows up as cavalry brigade, Reserve Grand Division in Jan '63)
1st US Cav: former AoP, left at Washington
2nd US Cav: ditto

Arguably all Hooker did was what McClellan did in July '62, only he simply had a much larger cavalry force.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Sadly, it's out of print and difficult to find, but I wrote that book a number of years ago. It was titled The Union Cavalry Comes of Age: Hartwood Church to Brandy Station, and it covers the first half of 1863. There's also the first volume of Stephen Z. Starr's epic trilogy on the Union cavalry, published by the Louisiana State University Press, and fortunately, still in print and readily available. I recommend it to you, even though it's a bit dated.

Read it and recommended it.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Who would you say should have been in charge of AotP cavalry during the Overland Campaign? Lets assume all other things being the same: Farnsworth dead, Buford dead, Pleasanton out of favor with Meade and being scapegoated for the Kilpatrick-Dalghren Raid. I assume Kilpatrick was also in hot water over the raid?

Historically, Grant brought in Sheridan (a cavalry novice) to head the cavalry corps and put cavalry novices (Wilson and Torbert) in charge of 2 of the 3 cavalry divisions, with Gregg as the only cavalry-experienced division commander. I believe Sheridan and Wilson were both appointed largely due to the influence of Grant? Maybe someone can shed light on how Torbert ended up in the cavalry having led an infantry brigade up to that point?

If you were Meade in spring 1864 who would you have wanted as your cavalry corps and divisional commanders? David Gregg as corps commander? Divisions under Wesley Merritt and...Custer? And the third under???

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

David Gregg for absolutely certain. Gregg was an extremely capable and professional soldier who would have done very well in that role. Merritt should have been a division commander. Tom Devin certainly should have been a division commander, and so should have John B. McIntosh, who was also a fine soldier. Each of these men would have done an outstanding job.

I have never been able to identify that reasons why Torbert was selected. He had no experience whatsoever with cavalry, and had a lot to learn about how to perform traditional cavalry duties. I believe that Grant chose him, but I cannot tell you why.

There was always W. W. Averell, who was an extremely capable cavalryman, but he was tainted by being scapegoated by Hooker and for being a Democrat who was closely aligned with George B. McClellan.