|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 12, 2008 20:48:57 GMT -6
Would love to blame my error on Shaara and that crappy Turner movie, but could not watch the movie and haven't read The Killer Angels for decades, although I recall really liking it. It's a novel, in any case.
Can only say that info I read, whatever it was, went in and stuck, or - worse - it's just age and I'm thinking of someone else entirely, probably someone like O.W. Holmes and that because I thought they looked alike. No clue.
In any case, I called Buford the "anti-Hussar" because he's always struck me as result oriented rather than 'glory' centered and not given to blow his own horn. His men and officers seemed to really, really admire and like him far above the norm, and his casualties were a lot lower than, oh, others you might name with comparable results.
What if Custer had had command of Buford's men on August* 1, 1863? Consider that "what if." Shudder. Actually, anyone other than Buford with his nearly unique views. Here's your hat. What's your hurry? Say, how 'bout dem Boston Braves, eh?
* By which I meant July. A trend appears......
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 13, 2008 1:25:15 GMT -6
Eric, thanks for those illuminating replies.
Interesting to read your view of Sheridan, especially as a subordinate. What a sequence of awful role models Custer had throughout the war. No wonder he emerged from it believing that obedience to authority was a purely optional pastime, and rules applied only to others.
With Sheridan out of the picture, and Buford in it, I'd guess Custer would never have come to occupy centre stage as he did. Useful enough in his way, but something of a sideshow in comparison to the serious commanders like Merritt?
Looks as if Keogh probably had Sheridan's measure. The following year, after Keogh and Stoneman were released from Confederate prison, Sheridan asked Keogh to join his staff, but Keogh was having none of it; he insisted on staying with Stoneman. Not that he actively disliked the man, I think -- they got on OK -- but clearly he saw virtues in Stoneman that Sheridan didn't have ...
How do you rate Stoneman, incidentally?
Re the Spencers: glad to hear you say that. I've always been slightly baffled when told they had them -- as Keogh doesn't seem ever to have got his hands on one until early 1867! He writes home to his brother describing the gun, explaining the magazine system, and saying how impressed he is with it ("a splendid weapon"), none of which would make any sense if he'd been using it for four years.
And bc, re the various relationships: I'm not aware, either, of any particular friendship between Keogh and Gibbon. Keogh was on friendly enough terms with Merritt for Merritt to do him a favour by finding a place on his staff (unpaid) for one of Keogh's cousins, but beyond that there's no sign that they were bosom buddies especially. As Melani says, though, he seems to have got on with most people. (Incidentally, by the end of the war he was quite friendly with Wilson, which must have scored him some brownie points with Benteen when they met.)
The Keogh-Custer relationship is quite a curious one. When they'd first met, on McClellan's staff in 1862, it was Keogh who was the dashing and celebrated war hero, while Custer was simply a very new captain, still somewhat wet behind the ears. Neither of them ever quite forgot that, I suspect. Keogh wasn't in any awe of Custer; not insubordinate or anything, but not afraid of him, and perfectly capable of teasing him unmercifully sometimes. I think he found him alternately faintly comical, and really quite annoying. To some extent it was the same vice versa, except that Custer rather looked up to Keogh -- at least in the early years of their acquaintance. He got over that, of course. Their relations kind of see-sawed throughout the 7th Cavalry years, sometimes friendly, sometimes (on Custer's part, at least) positively hostile. It's interesting to watch.
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 13, 2008 6:53:07 GMT -6
Would love to blame my error on Shaara and that crappy Turner movie, but could not watch the movie and haven't read The Killer Angels for decades, although I recall really liking it. It's a novel, in any case. Can only say that info I read, whatever it was, went in and stuck, or - worse - it's just age and I'm thinking of someone else entirely, probably someone like O.W. Holmes and that because I thought they looked alike. No clue. No worries. I understand. In fact, Buford was one who hated newspapermen and would not permit them to travel with his command. Consequently, he didn't get the attention that a glory-hound like Kilpatrick got, and it definitely cost him. LOL. I get your point. You may not know this, but there was quite a large cavalry battle at Brandy Station (yes, again) on August 1, 1863, and that's actually what I thought you were referring to. What Buford conducted at Gettysburg is an absolutely textbook example of what is today called a covering force action, and it just doesn't get any better than that as an example. Eric
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 13, 2008 7:05:00 GMT -6
Eric, thanks for those illuminating replies. You're very welcome, Elisabeth. That was just a taste of what I have to say about Little Phil, but it's certainly the most important aspect of my many criticisms of him. What I've never understood is why Grant continued to reward Sheridan for being grossly insubordinate, even of Grant. Custer, I think, also suffered from never having commanded anything before being plunked down into brigade command. He never understood regimental politics as a consequence, and I think that really hurt him in the 7th Cavalry. Precisely. Merritt was very much Buford's protege--and his greatest legacy--and Buford also had a vast amount of respect for Devin. Buford didn't suffer fools well, and I doubt he would have thought much of the circus-rider-gone-mad routine. Stoneman was a pro, there's no doubt about it. However, his physical ailments--he had a horrific case of hemorrhoids that made every minute spent in the saddle a living hell--and the fact that Hooker decided to make him his scapegoat for the debacle at Chancellorsville meant that he spent the rest of the war trying to redeem himself. That's why he went on that ill-fated raid on Andersonville that led to his being captured, and it's also why he ended up in the backwater of the war in southwestern Virginia once he was exchanged. Stoneman deserved better. Indeed. As I re-read my prior post, I realize I was a little unclear, so let me clarify what I meant. The Spencer carbine did not exist in any numbers other than a few prototypes in July 1863. It went into mass production in September 1863. The Spencer rifle, however, was already in mass production. All of Wilder's brigade of the Army of the Cumberland and all of the 5th Michigan Cavalry and four companies of the 6th Michigan Cavalry of the Army of the Potomac were armed with Spencer rifles in July 1863. Although there is a single source that suggests that a company of the 17th Pennsylvania Cavalry of Devin's brigade had Spencer rifles at Gettysburg, it cannot be corroborated, and, in fact, contradicts the June 30, 1863 ordnance returns. Consequently, I am quite confident that, other than John Buford's personal Henry rifle (which I have held, by the way), there was not a single repeating weapon in his three brigades on July 1, 1863. Merritt was the reserved, reticent type, much like Buford, and I can see as how he and a rollicking, boozing Irishman like Keogh probably didn't have a whole lot in common other than common service and common love and admiration for Buford. Precisely. And it's a good example of what I meant earlier when I commented on how Custer's lack of command experience at any level lower than brigade definitely hurt him within the 7th Cavalry. Eric
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 13, 2008 8:55:53 GMT -6
Again, thanks for the thought, but no, I had no idea an action took place at Brandy Station on August 1. Probably read it at some point, but it certainly was not in my RAM. It wasn't a typo, either. I'm thinking August, and anything I think about, obviously, must have taken place in August.
Still think the 'what if' (and I generally hate these) of Custer being in Buford's shoes at Gettysburg would be most illuminating about both Custerphiles and Custer. And horrifying. Just contemplating the precision and skill of Custer's recon that came to fruition in the note to Benteen that managed to be uninformative, contradictory, and repetitive in so few words thirteen years later. So, I'll play. Start with some variation of expressed possibility and end with the ellipses to suggest ominous import.
It's possible Reynolds - had the Iron Brigade deciphered the reports and actually arrived - would have reduced him in rank and/or had him shot........ "John. Come on. Big Rebel Unit. Bring supplies. Be quick. PS. Bring supplies."
So good, if relayed to Meade, the entire AOP could have been deployed to win and block retreat with just that info, say Custerphiles, and of course we know Custer only meant ammo when he said supplies. Custer was clearly attempting to cross Willoughby Run further north and capture Lee, and surely would have except that coward Reynolds and that traitor Meade.......
Freshen this. It's August....
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 13, 2008 10:16:03 GMT -6
Eric,
Yes, it was tough on Stoneman. Apart from his professional capabilities, he comes across as a genuinely good man. (Probably why Keogh liked him, of course.) Still, he did get that nice last hurrah, with the taking of Salisbury ...
Re Custer's lack of command experience: yes indeed. Very poor preparation. And it probably didn't help that so many of those he did command in the CW were old buddies. It wasn't really until Texas that he faced the harsh reality of dealing with a bunch of men he didn't know and who had no reason to worship him -- and a right mess he made of that.
I wonder if there wasn't also an element of class insecurity in the way he handled things in the 7th. For all the West Point education, he was basically from the wrong side of the tracks. It may account for his taking the stiff, unbending, authoritarian route whenever faced with trouble; he was too afraid of "losing caste" to be emollient or diplomatic with subordinates. Too much on his dignity. If people didn't like what he was doing, he just did more of it, on the grounds that they must be wrong, not him; he lacked the confidence to consider or admit error. (One thinks of something like the colouring-the-horses farrago in 1868, which drove everyone nuts. He must have seen what ill-feeling it was causing, and especially at the time he chose to do it -- in the field, at the start of a tough campaign. A more socially-skilled commander might have climbed down and at least postponed the exercise until the campaign was over. Or discussed it first, to have his officers buy into it as a great idea. But no; instead he ensures he's taking to the field with resentful officers, and troopers on unfamiliar horses. Not great man-management by any standards.)
Re Keogh and Merritt: well, maybe ... though, predictably, I'd question the "rollicking, boozing Irishman" image! Keogh struck McClellan as "a most gentleman-like man" (and this in company that included European ex-royalty); and when we look at the sort of people he did count as friends, they were a rather serious and refined lot on the whole. Andrew J. Alexander; Emory Upton; Archbishop Purcell of Ohio; Craig Wadsworh and Albert P. Morrow of Buford's staff; later, Fred Beecher, and the self-effacing Will Comstock; and away from the army and the war, people like the Martins of Auburn, NY, and Dr. Ouchterlony of Louisville. Merritt sounds pretty much like his sort of person, I'd have thought; certainly not chalk and cheese, at any rate. While I'm sure Buford appreciated having jolly, cheerful people around him, he'd be the last man to tolerate a buffoon. And he clearly thought very highly of Keogh -- to the extent of dissuading him from taking a plum post elsewhere with the promise that he "could do better than that" for him. So I think poor Keogh has had a somewhat unfair press. His letters show him to have been a rather earnest, thoughtful sort, far from frivolous (mostly), capable of deep feeling, and reticent almost to a fault about his own affairs. Much more in tune with the likes of Buford, Merritt and Stoneman than with the more rambunctious characters of the time. (OK, "the lady doth protest too much" ... but I'm sure you'd agree that it's important to pin down the reality of even the comparatively minor characters in these events!)
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 13, 2008 11:42:03 GMT -6
Again, thanks for the thought, but no, I had no idea an action took place at Brandy Station on August 1. Probably read it at some point, but it certainly was not in my RAM. It wasn't a typo, either. I'm thinking August, and anything I think about, obviously, must have taken place in August. LOL. By July 27 or 28, the armies had returned to the place where they began the Gettysburg Campaign, which was the banks of the Rappahannock River. On August 1, Pleasonton ordered the Cavalry Corps out to find out the precise dispositions of the Army of Northern Virginia, and when they crossed the river, they once again encountered Stuart and his cavalry. Most of the August 1 fight occurred on the same ground around Fleetwood Hill where the most memorable aspects of the June 9 fight occurred, but much of the fighting was on a different axis. Unlike June 9, Custer was now a brigade commander, and his Wolverines were involved in much of the day's fighting. You might also find it interesting to know that there was yet another major engagement at Brandy Station on October 11. I hate them too, and I usually refuse to indulge in "what if's" for that reason. However, this one being about one of my very favorite figures of the war and someone whose career I have studied and documented for nearly two decades was irresistible. And I absolutely agree with you about the horrifying part; as good a soldier as Custer was, he lacked discipline. LOL. Too funny. Eric
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 13, 2008 11:49:42 GMT -6
Elisabeth, Your points are well-taken. Keogh's relationship with Morrow, in particular, was long-standing. As you may know, Morrow came out of the 6th Pennsylvania Cavalry. At the beginning of the war, he was a sergeant. By Appomattox, he was the lieutenant colonel of the regiment, having survived being captured twice and several wounds. Buford chose him to join his staff because he was really impressed with Morrow's courage, daring, and demeanor during the raid deep behind Confederate lines on July 3-5, 1863, when Morrow received one of his several wounds. He was commissioned in the Regular Army after the Civil War--remarkable for someone with absolutely no formal military training--and served with Keogh for a while in the 7th. Morrow finally retired as colonel of the 3rd Cavalry about 1890, so that should tell you something about what a good soldier he was. Given my affinity for the 6th Pennsylvania and my personal admiration for Morrow, I've learned a lot about him over the years. I profiled him on my blog a couple of years ago: civilwarcavalry.com/?p=117. There's a photo of him there, too. Morrow was quite the handsome fellow, even by our modern standards, so he must have been a real ladies' man even in Victorian days. Eric
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 13, 2008 20:02:15 GMT -6
On the other hand, Stoneman is mentioned in a hit song of the 60's, Sheridan ain't. Before I forget, Mr. Wittenberg, having noted it on your site, Tennyson himself was recorded reading the Charge of the LB at the BBC site, in case you missed it. Kinda cool.
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 13, 2008 20:37:46 GMT -6
On the other hand, Stoneman is mentioned in a hit song of the 60's, Sheridan ain't. Before I forget, Mr. Wittenberg, having noted it on your site, Tennyson himself was recorded reading the Charge of the LB at the BBC site, in case you missed it. Kinda cool. DC, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for telling me--I shall have to check it out. Eric
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 14, 2008 12:34:50 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. I don't think his old wounds would have kept him from command as long as he didn't get sick. I don't know how much any wounds may have contributed to his succumbing to illness, though... Yes, I agree with both of these opinions. Forrest was more the Hussar type, to be sure...actually he is America's finest COSSACK. That is a much better description of his style of leadership and tactics. As for "glory," I think ALL cavalry officers like glory...otherwise they'd be artillerymen. <g> Yes, they certainly did, and well deserved. He was an excellent "outpost officer" as they liked to say back then, with his great reporting and operational insight. He knew what his bosses wanted as well as any officer I've studied. Did Buford favor dismounted fighting more than Custer? I'm not sure about that...if you do a percentage of tactical actions fought mounted or dismounted (actually just count attacks), I think you'll find that they are about the same. Both men used a combination of mounted charges/counter-charges with dismounted fire support. Both men attacked dismounted. Custer has many more examples, because he fought more combats than Buford did. Also, as the war went on, the Union cavalry learned to fight mounted better, and more often. Since Buford missed that, and Custer fought in the "massed mounted" portion of the war...the last year and a half, we would expect Custer to see more mounted action. But Buford loved the mounted saber charge...don't sell him short. He ain't no "mounted infantryman." Yuk. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 14, 2008 12:55:08 GMT -6
Some considerations from an Old Cavalryman...
Buford was a great cavalry officer and Soldier. Custer was a great cavalry officer and Soldier. And these are very different types of leaders.
So what y'all are expressing is a preference for a type of leadership style, rather than who is the "best cavalry officer," in my opinion.
Grant, Sheridan, Hooker, Meade, Pope, Sherman...all these men had different ideas of what their preferred type of cavalry leader was.
The above discussion is an excellent examination of leadership styles and traits, and levels of experience. But don't fall into the assumption that some style is "better" than another style for any given position. Especially when both these styles were very successful in their war.
Strengths and weaknesses of Buford's commandership...and yes, he had plenty of weaknesses, too...normally the flip side of his strengths. Same with Custer.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by rch on Aug 14, 2008 14:49:49 GMT -6
If Buford have lived, Sheridan would still have come East to command the AOP Cav. Buford would have commanded the 1st Division and Torbert would have remained with the Infantry. Wilson's assignment to command the 3rd Div would still have caused the transfer of Davies to the 2nd Division and Custer with his whole brigade would have gone to Buford's Division. Wilson would have still gone West in the Fall of 1864 and Custer would have gotten the 3rd Division. Buford would have commanded the Cav in the Shenandoah Valley and the Cavalry of the Army of the Shenandoah in the Appomattox campaign, Merritt would have moved up to replace Buford as division commander, and Devin would have remained a brigade commander. Griffin of the V Corps would not have been promoted to Maj Gen of Vols until 15 Apr 1865 and Custer would have had to wait until 4 May 1865. Keogh probably would have remained on Buford's staff and may have accepted a colonelcy and would still be a Capt of the 7th Cavalry effective Jul 1866 although he might have been the regiment's first captain, and if that had happened, you can bet Keogh wouldn't have been given a reason to save a good spot for Benteen's company on the evening of 24 Jun 1876.
Merritt was as much or more a favorite of Sheridan than Custer.
Custer was a fine regimental officer. Only the hard line Benteenphiles don't know it.
rch
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 14, 2008 15:35:03 GMT -6
That's not true. For it to be true, it would mean that people who didn't think much of Custer's abilities only thought so after the LBH, if they're Benteenphiles. Custer had critics back East, as well, during the CW. In any case, nobody has said Custer wasn't a "fine" regimental officer, whatever that might mean. Wittenberg, apparently not a LBH fanatic, is hardly a Benteenphile when he references Custer as undisciplined, is he?
He's not alone in that. There were people who never knew or heard of Benteen who thought Custer had that flaw in the Civil War. And later, who was the 7th soldier quoted as saying Custer wasn't all that liked by the men because he changed his mind a lot?
In the event, Custer at Gettysburg in place of Buford - while highly unlikely, of course - is disquieting.
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 14, 2008 16:01:04 GMT -6
That's not true. For it to be true, it would mean that people who didn't think much of Custer's abilities only thought so after the LBH, if they're Benteenphiles. Custer had critics back East, as well, during the CW. In any case, nobody has said Custer wasn't a "fine" regimental officer, whatever that might mean. Wittenberg, apparently not a LBH fanatic, is hardly a Benteenphile when he references Custer as undisciplined, is he? He's not alone in that. There were people who never knew or heard of Benteen who thought Custer had that flaw in the Civil War. And later, who was the 7th soldier quoted as saying Custer wasn't all that liked by the men because he changed his mind a lot? In the event, Custer at Gettysburg in place of Buford - while highly unlikely, of course - is disquieting. I am most assuredly not a Benteenphile. I don't know enough about the LBH to have an opinion, and with everything else that I have to work on, I have neither the time nor the inclination to immerse myself into the lore of the LBH to learn enough to make that decision. My assessment of Custer as undisciplined is based entirely on my observations of his Civil War career, and my statements about his issues within the regiment come entirely from biographies such as Wert's. Had Buford lived, I cannot begin to imagine Sheridan being appointed to command the Cavalry Corps, but I can imagine Sheridan being placed in command of either 2nd Corps or, more likely, 5th Corps. Given a choice of an old Regular cavalryman who had the universal respect of all versus Sheridan, I doubt that anyone--not even Grant--would have usurped Buford for the likes of Sheridan. Eric
|
|