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

Eric views the cavalry raid as a mistake, but I think Grant intended to use the tactics of Nathan Bedford Forrest in the East. The cavalry was going to used to attack the enemy's rear areas, like bombers in the 20th century.

One key distinction, Forrest was mainly trying to hamper the Yankees' ability to sustain an offensive posture. The Confederate main army, operating on the defensive, could afford to detach its cavalry to raise heck in the enemy's rear areas.

An army - either side - on the offensive was in a different situation, and needed its cavalry to spearhead the advance. Grant in the Overland campaign repeatedly sought to move around Lee's flank and barely failed on several occasions; Sheridan's powerful mounted force might have made the difference.

p.s. the bomber analogy is a good one.
 
All of these Virginia raids were preliminary to getting Sheridan prepared to be an independent commander capable of ruthlessly applying the violence of the United States cavalry in the Shenandoah Valley in September of 1864. The more ruthless, the better.
Joseph Glatthaar addressed some of these issues in a March 31, 2017 panel lecture which is available on youtube.
Cash attends some of these discussions, but I don't remember seeing him at this one.
 
All of these Virginia raids were preliminary to getting Sheridan prepared to be an independent commander capable of ruthlessly applying the violence of the United States cavalry in the Shenandoah Valley in September of 1864. The more ruthless, the better.
Joseph Glatthaar addressed some of these issues in a March 31, 2017 panel lecture which is available on youtube.
Cash attends some of these discussions, but I don't remember seeing him at this one.

You mean the campaign that my old friend Jeff Wert quite correctly described as being "a victorious campaign bereft of decision"? That one?

Got it.

We have a Sheridan apologist amongst our ranks, friends. I had no idea that any of those even existed.
 
You mean the campaign that my old friend Jeff Wert quite correctly described as being "a victorious campaign bereft of decision"? That one?

Got it.

We have a Sheridan apologist amongst our ranks, friends. I had no idea that any of those even existed.
Haha, there is another one on here too (NOT me!) but I cannot remember her name!
 
The more dead, demoralized and disorganized Rebels the better, from a Federal point of view. It added up as part of the process of winning the war.
 
All of these Virginia raids were preliminary to getting Sheridan prepared to be an independent commander capable of ruthlessly applying the violence of the United States cavalry in the Shenandoah Valley in September of 1864. The more ruthless, the better.
Joseph Glatthaar addressed some of these issues in a March 31, 2017 panel lecture which is available on youtube.
Cash attends some of these discussions, but I don't remember seeing him at this one.

To my mind, you're reading a lot more into this than there actually is. I don't see any evidence that Grant was thinking of giving Sheridan an independent command or that this raid was a preliminary to something that could not have been foreseen in May 1864.

Ryan
 
To my mind, you're reading a lot more into this than there actually is. I don't see any evidence that Grant was thinking of giving Sheridan an independent command or that this raid was a preliminary to something that could not have been foreseen in May 1864.

Ryan

From everything I have read (and posted) my interpretation was that Grant's choice to let Sheridan go after Stuart was somewhat of a spontaneous decision. What came after was a separate chain of events --> not premeditated. Just my interpretation. I could be wrong.
 
Back
Top