Sheridan Philip Sheridan

Not trying to be difficult, but I think he is.
I agree.
Sheridan was supportive of Custer during- and immediately after the war. And why not? It was audacious men like Custer who made Sheridan successful.
Recall that Sheridan gave the desk used during the surrender at Appomattox (now in the Smithsonian Museum) to Custer's wife, Elizabeth, along with a note praising her husband.
As to Custer, it is wrong- but very popular- to judge his career by his "last stand", where he was acting under intentionally ambiguous orders and ill-served by his two senior subordinates.
As Nelson Miles put it, "No commanding officer can win victories with seven-twelfths of his command remaining out of the engagement when within sound of his rifle-shots." <Nelson A. Miles, Personal recollections and observations of General Nelson A. Miles embracing a brief view of the Civil War, or, From New England to the Golden Gate : and the story of his Indian campaigns, with comments on the exploration, development and progress of our great western empire. (Chicago: The Werner Company, 1897), p. 290.>
 
I know hard core Southerners hate him with a passion and I dont think that was because he was shy or unsuccessful in causing harm to the enemy. You have to take into account that it took a while for the Union Calvary to get up 2 speed. They did not have good horsemen nor good horses. The Northern horses were by and large draft animals. Equestrian sports were Southern Phenoms pre war. Sheridan is hated in the South as much as anyone and I think he was no more ruthless than Jackson. There has to be a good reason for that
Further, the US Army did not see a large role for cavalry in the war. They thought of them useful only for reconnaissance. The success of J. E. B. Stuart changed all that....
 
I agree.
Sheridan was supportive of Custer during- and immediately after the war. And why not? It was audacious men like Custer who made Sheridan successful.

Understandable before Custer's 1867 court martial.
 
As Nelson Miles put it, "No commanding officer can win victories with seven-twelfths of his command remaining out of the engagement when within sound of his rifle-shots."

I speculate Major Elliot was thinking something similar in 1868.
 
Last edited:
Does General Sheridan get the credit he deserves for helping win the Civil War? Sheridan was a major American hero, but did his performance merit his hero status? He was a good general and seemed to usually win battles.




Historically(history books) I believe his contributions to Grant's defeat of Lee and the ANV and to the successful conclusion of the War, are accurate enough. But, I do, think the value of his contributions to Union success, have been dimmed by distance and time.

His Valley Campaigns and the forcing of Lee from Petersburg and, especially the pursuit phase of the ANV's retreat to Appomattox, IMO, are not really properly appreciated, as to how necessary they were to the Union Victory in 1865 and, thus, how necessary it was for there to be a Sheridan.
 
JEB Stuart was a success because of his recon and screening abilities.
Thanks for your response.
Perhaps my brief comment did not do the subject justice....
Union military planners saw little use for cavalry beyond simple reconnaissance, messenger, guard and escort duty. They were not seen as an effective force in pitched battles except as shock troops. There were just five cavalry regiments and the initial requests for troops sought few cavalry regiments.
Stuart's success changed all of that, demonstrating the versatility and effectiveness of large, massed cavalry in large, far ranging reconnaissance, providing effective screening for large scale movements and as a large, mobile, relatively independent combat force.
No one, certainly among the Union military planners, anticipated the greater role that eventually saw cavalry on cavalry battles, most famously June 9, 1863 at Brandy Station, Virginia and major, long range raids such as Grierson's April 1863 raid and Sheridan's 1864 Valley campaign, as well as the key offensive role the Union cavalry played in the Appomattox Campaign in 1865.
 
I speculate Major Elliot was thinking something similar in 1868.
Thanks for your response.
Interesting you bring up Major Elliott, a friend of Custer, at Washita, which became an excuse for Captain Frederick Benteen's deeply obsessive jealousy of Custer, fueling his steady criticism of his commanding officer.
Benteen claimed that Custer had abandoned Elliott, who had gone off on his own during the fight and with his men was later found dead.
Yet years later, he wrote in the margins of his copy of Custer's My Life on the Plains, "Had party been found after fight at Washita, they would have simply been found dead, as they were two weeks later."<ref>John M. Carroll, Custer From the Civil War to the Little Big Horn (Privately printed, 1981), p. 14</ref>
 
Understandable before Custer's 1867 court martial.
Thanks for your response.
Custer was tried by court martial for going AWOL to visit his wife, a not uncommon act by frontier officers at the time.
The court martial did not open a rift between the two men. Sheridan gladly recalled Custer early from his one year suspension to take command, prepare and lead the Seventh Cavalry in a winter campaign against the Cheyenne. Sheridan told Custer, "I rely on you in everything, and shall send you on this expedition without orders, leaving you to act entirely on your own judgement." <Marguerite Merington, The Custer Story: The Life and Intimate Letters of General George A. Custer and his wife Elizabeth. (Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Predd, 1987), p. 309>
Sheridan's support of Custer cooled (as did Sherman's) after Custer's administration-damaging testimony before the Clymer Committee. The Committee was investigating corruption in the awarding of Army trading post monopolies and the price-gouging of soldiers and Indians by the traders. Although he had been openly critical of corruption, Custer did not want to testify. He was forced to testify by subpoena, issued by the Committee to draw attention to their investigation. His testimony effectively ended his relationship with Grant, who refused at least three times to meet Custer in Washington, once keeping him waiting in a White House ante-room nearly all day. <Merrington, The Custer Story. p. 281.>
Because Terry's second, CYA report on the Battle of Little Bighorn reached headquarters- and was published- before his first, more truthful evaluation, many quickly blamed Custer. These included Grant, Sherman and Sheridan. Sherman and Sheridan both later revised and softened their earlier assessments.
In the end, it was clear Sheridan admired Custer. Sheridan said Custer's defeat was due to his "superabundance of courage."<ref W. A. Graham, The Custer Myth: a Sourcebook of Custeriana. (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole, 2000), p. 117>
 
Yet years later, he wrote in the margins of his copy of Custer's My Life on the Plains, "Had party been found after fight at Washita, they would have simply been found dead, as they were two weeks later."

I was aware that Benteen blamed Custer for the deaths of Elliott and his detachment but not aware that he wrote that years later in his book.

I find it ironic that both Elliott and Custer were impetuous at the end. In Elliott's case it was, "Here's to a brevet or a coffin!" In Custer's case it was, "No, I will not!" - meaning wait for others, or save some Indians for others.

Anyway, back to Sheridan. As far as his support for Custer went, fair enough, I reckon you gotta dance with them what brung you. At least Sheridan is on record supporting his other field commanders too. I know Sheridan had his strengths but I believe the Union had cavalrymen better than him who are largely forgotten.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WJC
Further, the US Army did not see a large role for cavalry in the war. They thought of them useful only for reconnaissance. The success of J. E. B. Stuart changed all that....

This was because there was not a heavy cavalry tradition in the United States. There are several reasons for this:

With its' heavy wildernesses and the lack of titled nobility who traditionally organized and led heavy cavalry in Europe, there was not really an impetus to create a heavy cavalry force along the lines of curassiers, lancers, or heavy hussars in America. The Continental Army based its' organization on the British Army, who had only deployed dragoons in America to that point. Dragoons made much more sense. They could fight and skirmish dismounted and were not as impeded by the terrain, and when the rare occasion called for it, could still charge with saber in saddle. The Polish Hussar Casimir Pulaski attempted, if I recall correctly, to create a lancer unit with his American legion but the defeats of the Continental Army in the American South and Pulaski's death at Savannah ended this experiment.

After Independence, the United States continued to rely on dragoons and mounted riflemen. Now there were officers in the American Civil War who realized the potential of the saber, especially Europeans like Col. Robert Minty in the Western theater. However, it took time and experience to create a cavalry corps that was capable of the massed saber charges that Sheridan performed in the Valley and at Five Forks.
 
I was aware that Benteen blamed Custer for the deaths of Elliott and his detachment but not aware that he wrote that years later in his book.

I find it ironic that both Elliott and Custer were impetuous at the end. In Elliott's case it was, "Here's to a brevet or a coffin!" In Custer's case it was, "No, I will not!" - meaning wait for others, or save some Indians for others.

Anyway, back to Sheridan. As far as his support for Custer went, fair enough, I reckon you gotta dance with them what brung you. At least Sheridan is on record supporting his other field commanders too. I know Sheridan had his strengths but I believe the Union had cavalrymen better than him who are largely forgotten.
Thanks for your response.
Sheridan made full use of his good relationship with the press.
Nonetheless, Theodore Lyman, a member of Meade's staff, wrote on November 16, 1864, "They have made Sheridan a Major-General in the Regular Army. I think he deserves it for that remarkable battle of Cedar Creek. Those of Opequon and of Fisher's Hill were joyous occasions; but he ought to have won those, because his forces were probably at least as two to one, and his cavalry immeasurably superior; but this last battle was the thing that brought out his high merit. The language of the order is, not to be commended, as it makes Sheridan a cat's-paw to give McClellan an insulting hit." <Theodore Lyman, With Grant and Meade From the Wilderness to Appomattox. (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1994), pp. 270-271.>
 
This was because there was not a heavy cavalry tradition in the United States. There are several reasons for this:

With its' heavy wildernesses and the lack of titled nobility who traditionally organized and led heavy cavalry in Europe, there was not really an impetus to create a heavy cavalry force along the lines of curassiers, lancers, or heavy hussars in America. The Continental Army based its' organization on the British Army, who had only deployed dragoons in America to that point. Dragoons made much more sense. They could fight and skirmish dismounted and were not as impeded by the terrain, and when the rare occasion called for it, could still charge with saber in saddle. The Polish Hussar Casimir Pulaski attempted, if I recall correctly, to create a lancer unit with his American legion but the defeats of the Continental Army in the American South and Pulaski's death at Savannah ended this experiment.

After Independence, the United States continued to rely on dragoons and mounted riflemen. Now there were officers in the American Civil War who realized the potential of the saber, especially Europeans like Col. Robert Minty in the Western theater. However, it took time and experience to create a cavalry corps that was capable of the massed saber charges that Sheridan performed in the Valley and at Five Forks.
Thanks for your response and additional background.
 
Does General Sheridan get the credit he deserves for helping win the Civil War? Sheridan was a major American hero, but did his performance merit his hero status? He was a good general and seemed to usually win battles.
Ask the people who lived in the Valley if Sheridian was a hero. Was he as a"hero"as Sherman was in his march and then into Carolina?Then when he was comander of the Army under Grant do the Indians view him as a hero?
 
Ask the people who lived in the Valley if Sheridian was a hero. Was he as a"hero"as Sherman was in his march and then into Carolina?Then when he was comander of the Army under Grant do the Indians view him as a hero?

Considering Sherman was very popular in Georgia after the war, I'd say he was definitely a hero in the March to the Sea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bee
Ask the people who lived in the Valley if Sheridian was a hero. Was he as a"hero"as Sherman was in his march and then into Carolina?Then when he was comander of the Army under Grant do the Indians view him as a hero?

It seems that a review of Sherman's motivations is in order -- here ya go:

The general had spent much time in the South as a U.S. Army officer and as superintendent of what later became Louisiana State University. He had many Southern friends and thus had an attachment to the South and its people. Sherman sought, therefore, a way to end the war with as little bloodshed as possible. His entire war experience, particularly as Ulysses S. Grant’s subordinate, provided him with battlefield savvy and tactics to do just that...http://www.historynet.com/general-william-tecumseh-sherman
 
Back
Top