|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 12, 2008 6:09:11 GMT -6
Have been wondering -- what difference would it have made?
A difference to Keogh's career, almost certainly, as Buford had promised him great things (unspecified). But ... to the course of the war?
On the one hand, he'd proved himself to be an uncommonly sound and astute general, so his contribution throughout the rest of the war would certainly have been significant. On the other: had he still been around, would the likes of Grant and Sheridan have come to such prominence? And if they had not, would the war have ground on for longer than it did? Would the South have suffered less in the long run, or more? Or would Union in-fighting have shunted Buford off to one side fairly swiftly, as it did so many other generals, making it immaterial whether he survived beyond 1863 or not?
I realise this is "what if" territory, and it's impossible to know the answer for sure. But I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 12, 2008 6:52:56 GMT -6
I'll give it a stab...
Had Buford lived, Sheridan would not have become the AoP's cavalry commander, but he may have come over with Grant as an Infantry Corps commander. Buford would have led the cavalry after Grant rid himself of Pleasonton.
As such, it is doubtful Grant would have given him an independent army command in the valley as he gave Sheridan. Likely, Sheridan would have still gone to the valley as an infantry leader, and probably Buford would have gone as his subordinate.
I don't think Custer's history would have changed much at all...most likely he would still end up commanding a cavalry division, along with Merritt, who was Buford's protoge.
Other than that, I don't see much of history changing. After the war, Buford may have been in command of a division out west instead of either Crook or Terry, still under Sheridan and Sherman.
I think Buford would keep tighter control of Custer, however...more than Hancock, Sully, or Terry ever did, since he was such an experienced cavalry commander himself. Custer may have controlled himself a bit more under Buford (not get into as much trouble), and would still be in keen competition with Merritt and MacKenzie out west.
Buford may have controlled the Powder River campaign of '76 better, and as such perhaps LBH would have been different, but that is really stretching it. I have a hard time seeing what Buford may have done differently than Terry that would have made a difference to the 7th Cav. Buford was more like Crook, so perhaps he wouldn't have sent the 7th Cav alone so far out...Buford was not the type to take many chances.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 12, 2008 8:10:15 GMT -6
If Buford had lived he'd still have been ill with festering wounds. What you mean is what if Buford hadn't been wounded.
Buford was the anti-Hussar, an experienced Indian fighter, and like Forrest in that getting there first with the most made much sense to him, and glory was a word that probably caught in his throat. He leaned towards dragoon usage for mounted men. Compare his reports to Reynolds before Gettysburg with virtually anyone else's ideas of battlefield communication. Accurate, informative, and frequently updated. His superiors must have loved him. Should have, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 12, 2008 9:10:17 GMT -6
?
He had been wounded the previous year, but had recovered. What he died of was typhoid, brought on by exhaustion. Agree wholly with your summation, however.
His superiors should have loved him; unfortunately, Secretary of War Stanton didn't. So quite how far he'd have risen if he'd survived has to be questionable. (Stanton famously refused to promote him to Major General until assured categorically that Buford could not live more than a few hours.) But he'd surely have continued to make an impact.
Clair, interesting points. I hadn't thought to speculate beyond the end of the Civil War, but of course you're right, he'd have come into the post-war picture too. Since he'd had pre-war experience of fighting the Plains Indians, he'd have been a brilliant choice to put in place of, say, Hancock. (Of course, the Army being the Army the world over, they'd probably have sent him to Arizona or Texas instead ...) Intriguing to think how the 1867 campaign might have played out with him at the helm; they might have wrapped the whole thing up in one season, instead of the Indian Wars dragging on for another decade. Quite a thought. And he'd certainly have stood for no nonsense from Custer. It could have done GAC the world of good to operate under a man so unimpressed by showing-off and self-indulgence. He might have grown up, quite fast.
In the Civil War, though: can we imagine that the 1864 campaign would have been any different? Or not?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 12, 2008 10:01:48 GMT -6
I was wrong. I had it firmly in mind that he'd been shot at Thoroughfare Gap (?) in the abdomen and it was a continuing issue for him. No clue where that went onto the hard drive.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Aug 12, 2008 10:27:40 GMT -6
If memory serves me right, wasn't Buford bloodied a little bit(but not that much) the first day at Gettysburg and then was out of action in the rear for the remainder of the battle.
If Buford was at the Rosebud instead of Crook, I'm not sure anything would have changed there.
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 12, 2008 15:43:40 GMT -6
If Buford had lived he'd still have been ill with festering wounds. What you mean is what if Buford hadn't been wounded. What wound??? Buford received a single injury during the war. He was struck in the knee by a spent ball at Second Bull Run that kept him out of the saddle for about a week. That's it. He died of typhoid fever. Eric
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 12, 2008 15:52:02 GMT -6
Here's precisely what would have happened...
In October 1863, in the wake of the debacle at Chickamauga, combined with the illness of David S. Stanley, the Army of the Cumberland's Cavalry Corps commander, Maj. Gen. William S. Rosecrans, sent a letter to Halleck requesting that John Buford be sent to him to take command of his cavalry. Buford agreed, provided that he was given permission to take Merritt and the Reserve Brigade with him.
The problem was that the Bristoe Campaign was already underway, whereas nothing was really going on at Chattanooga other than Bragg attempting to lay siege. The decision wade made not to pull the Army of the Potomac's Cavalry Corps out of the field in the middle of a campaign. By the time it ended, and preparations for the transfer were being made, Buford had already contracted the typhoid fever that took his life. He fell ill on or about November 7, and left the army just over a week later.
He lingered until December 16, when the typhoid finally took his life. He died in the rented house of George Stoneman, in the arms of Myles Keogh. Not long before he died, he received the long-craved commission as a major general, prompting him to say, "Too late. Now I wish I could live."
Buford's first cousin Abraham (West Point Class of 1841, 1st Dragoons) commanded a division under Forrest. Abe and John Buford were very close, as their common experiences at West Point and in the army brought them together. One can only imagine the battle royale between Buford and Forrest, as Abe and John crashed into each other.
Had Buford not gone west, there's no doubt in my mind that he would been appointed to command the AoP Cavalry Corps after Pleasonton. In 1875, Hooker said that had he known how good Buford was, he would have made him Cavalry Corps commander, and not Stoneman. John Gibbon said, "John Buford was the best cavalryman I ever saw," and expressed the opinion that Buford would have been the Cavalry Corps commander.
Sheridan was, in reality, a lousy Cavalry Corps commander, so even if Buford was the "anti-hussar" as one of you called him, I daresay he would have posted a won-loss record significantly better than Sheridan's 2-12-1 record as commander of the Cavalry Corps.
Eric
|
|
|
Post by bc on Aug 12, 2008 17:33:53 GMT -6
What was Myles Keough's function at the time when Buford died?
Apparently Buford, Merritt, Keough, and Gibbon were all acquainted. Were they close friends?
I'm just wondering about the Keough & Gibbon connection and how that may have affected Gibbon post LBH.
I also am trying to remember what side Custer was on regarding this Merritt issue that had popped up somewhere and how that may have affected the relationship between Keough & Custer. I assume Keough carried what I term as a Most Favored Officer status with Custer.
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 12, 2008 19:14:22 GMT -6
What was Myles Keough's function at the time when Buford died? Pretty much Buford's chief of staff, and surrogate son. They had that sort of relationship. Yes. Buford and Gibbon were roommates in Utah before the war. Both having Southern roots, they gravitated toward each other. Merritt and Buford served in the same company in the 2nd Dragoons in Utah, and Merritt is generally considered to be Buford's protege, and for good reason. Keogh and Buford had a father/son sort of relationship. I am not personally aware of there being one. I'm afraid I can't help you here. Sorry. Eric
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 12, 2008 19:28:42 GMT -6
? In the Civil War, though: can we imagine that the 1864 campaign would have been any different? Or not? Absolutely. There are lots of reasons for this. Let's explore just a few.... With Buford gone: Pleasonton is relieved of command of the Cavalry Corps. Buford dies. Kilpatrick is sent west. Sheridan is appointed corps commander, with exactly 60 days' experience commanding cavalry. Torbert is appointed 1st Division commander with NO cavalry experience. Wilson is appointed commander of the 3rd Division, having never commanded anything other than a few West Point cadets. It's no wonder that Sheridan posted such a horrible won-loss record as Cavalry Corps commander, and it's likewise not a surprise that he was so hands-off as cavalry chief. If you study the historical record closely, you will find that he was almost never at the front while commander of the Cavalry Corps, preferring to let the old pro, Gregg, have tacit command most of the time. Wilson eventually grew into the job, but for the first few months--the Overland Campaign--his performance was just brutal. Torbert was barely competent to command cavalry, and eventually got himself fired by Sheridan in the Valley. Sheridan also was an atrocious subordinate. His willful insubordination of Meade and Grant's endorsement of it by giving him an independent command meant that Sheridan and Meade could never serve together again, which they didn't. That, in turn, meant that Grant stumbled through much of the Overland Campaign without a cavalry screen, which almost cost him his entire army at the North Anna. Sheridan had no interest or skill for the traditional roles of cavalry: scouting, screening and reconnaissance. That also helps to explain why the Cavalry Corps was so ineffective for most of the Overland Campaign. With Buford: Buford commands the Cavalry Corps, Merritt gets 1st Division, and while you probably still get Wilson, you have someone with a proven track record as a cavalry commander to teach him, and to keep him on a very short leash until he demonstrates that he was worthy of being let off that very short leash. Buford also had no peer on the Union side for the traditional role of cavalry; his intelligence work was typically impeccable, and he typically did an outstanding job of finding and identifying the enemy (see his intelligence reports on June 29 and 30, 1863 if you need an example of what I'm talking about). And, unlike Sheridan, Buford was the ideal subordinate. He didn't brook fools well, but he was an old Regular (he was a major in the Regular Army) who understood the role of cavalry and what his role was in the big scheme of things. Finally, in 1864, the advances in technology drove a lot of the tactics, which is why the bulk of the cavalry fighting was done dismounted. Buford, being a dragoon, would have been an ideal commander under those circumstances. The thought of the epic battles between Buford and Hampton is intriguing to say the very least. Eric
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Aug 12, 2008 19:28:49 GMT -6
I would guess that if Buford had survived the war and gone out West, Keogh would have gone with him, probably as staff, as he had been. That certainly would have changed Keogh's history.
I don't really think Keogh was part of the Custer Clan, though he and Custer certainly got along all right. I think Keogh made an effort to get along with everybody.
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 12, 2008 19:32:50 GMT -6
Melani,
I don't think that there's much doubt that Buford would have taken Keogh with him had he survived and then headed west.
Eric
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 12, 2008 19:54:42 GMT -6
I was wrong. I had it firmly in mind that he'd been shot at Thoroughfare Gap (?) in the abdomen and it was a continuing issue for him. No clue where that went onto the hard drive. By the way, one of the more irritating myths about John Buford perpetuated by The Killer Angels and the Gettysburg movie that was based on it is that Buford's command was at Thoroughfare Gap and that it was somehow left to its fate there. When Buford was supposedly there, his brigade was actually at Waterloo Bridge, and his command was never engaged in the fighting at Thoroughfare Gap on August 28 or 29. That fighting was mostly Ricketts' division. The most irritating of the myths, of course, is the myth of the Spencers. There were none. Not one that is documented in the June 30, 1863 ordnance returns. The Spencer carbine didn't yet exist; it didn't go into mass production until September 1863. I guess I've spent too many years studying this man's career. Eric
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Aug 12, 2008 20:22:12 GMT -6
Good career to study--he's always been one of my favorites. Can you recommend a good biography?
|
|