"Best ACW Cavalry Commander?" Topic

Who was the best?

J.E.B. Stuart. The cavalry of the ANV dominated until mid-1863. You can also make an argument for Phil Sheridan, but by the time he took over the South was deficient in everything necessary to maintain an effective cavalry.

Stuart or Shelby. I think it was Kilpatrick, who served against both, who rated Shelby as the better commander.

N.B. Forrest, hands down. Stuart is the most overrated Cav commander.

Don

Read Powell's Failure in the Saddle…you may not think Forrest to be so grand, plus he was terrible at Tupelo.

Stuart is over-rated to a point as he was not consistent throughout the entire war. And to be honest, was his success also a product of inept Union leadership and use of their own cavalry? I would say yes.

Sheridan gets surprised at Cedar Creek while commanding an overall force. He was mostly an infantry commander throughout the war.

Kilpatrick is surprised and beaten at Monroe Cross Roads (the name eludes me right now so I may not have that correct).

Shelby's raids…I have heard from a Missouri historian buddy of mine…decent for the most part, but we hear so much about him simply as the trans-Mississippi doesn't have much else to throw out there.

Wilson did well at Nashville (where Thomas receives the credit), but had other days where he wasn't so grand.

Morgan.…decent raider, terrible on the battlefield.

Wheeler…couldn't send info back to higher command if a gun was against his head (see Perryville and Chickamauga)

Hard to really say who was the best. We have to get away from throwing a name out there and accepting a common perception without doing the research to show that they all had good and bad days.

Apparently Wade Hampton did quite well with inferior horses and equipment after Stuart's death. JEB is still my favorite for the combination of competence and style.

My money would be on Buford even though his career was cut short by Typhoid near the end of '63. He always managed to put his command in the right place, and extracted the most damage to the enemy unlike most of his peers. Had he lived he may very well have commanded the cavalry in the Valley Campaign of '64 instead of Sheridan.

One thing is for sure, without Buford there never would have been a battle at Gettysburg.

Another vote for Buford.

Forrest is probably an example of that old line that you can only beat what they put in front of you and let's face it most of the time it was not that good!

Quantrill anyone ?

Seems to me that we are talking about different levels of command and, as was mentioned, differing levels of resources throughout the war. I would vote for Wade Hampton if i had just one choice. I agree with Darryl on Forrest (but not about Thomas). Buford gets my vote for his conduct at his level of command. Plus he is a Yank so I am biased toward Federal cavalry. H

Forrest!

One thing I have noticed in my 54 years of studying military history is that greatness seems to fade the more in detail you read about any commander. Just a personal observation.

Wade Hampton always seemed fairly solid to me.

My sentimental pick is Turner Ashby, but he died too early. The better choice is Wade Hampton who was a solid performer both early in the war and later when the quality of southern cavalry declined.

I agree with Darryl's comments and highly recommend Failure in the Saddle for an excellent discussion of the trials and tribulations of the Army of Tennessee's cavalry during the Chickamauga campaign.

As far as the original question, I'd choose Hampton for the South and Buford for the North. As far as I'm concerned there were no overall outstanding cavalry commanders at the senior levels for either side. Both sides had some good commanders but they were either hamstrung by poor utilization (particularly the North) or by egregious faults (Stuart at Gettysburg).

The overarching challenge for all of them was that the US Army prior to the ACW did not have a cohesive operational method for employing cavalry. All of the cavalry operations prior to it had been small level (few at regimental strength) against either similar small numbers of European cavalry (AWI British) or American Indian tribal groups. Thus their large scale (brigade and division) employment during the ACW did not have a "native" basis upon which to base their experience. It was all "makee-learnee" by both sides. The Confederates for the most part seemed to do better in the early part of the war but by 1864 the Union cavalry was, for the most part, their equal or better.

Anyway, my nickel's worth.

Jim

Captain Wilton Parmenter, "The Scourge of Appomattox."

Forrest: incredible raider, tough fighter, not very good scout, didn't play well with others. Note Army of Tennessee had two cavalry corps, not one.

Stuart: excellent scout, decent raider and fighter, team player (except Gettysburg)

Sheridan: good fighter, moderate raider and scout

Grierson: best single Union raid ever, roundly stuffed by Forrest at Brice's Crossroads.

Wilson: kicks butt raiding and fighting around the end of the war, gets roughed up earlier while learning his trade.

How about John Wilder? Yes, I know…mounted infantry vs. true cavalry, but he commanded one of the most effective brigades in the entire war.

And by 1864, most of the cavalry, North and South, had become mounted infantry in all but name.

Jim

USA Custer, CSA Stuart. John Miller

Forrest.

Blue, Buford, Grey, Forrest.

ColCampbell: Just an opinion of course, but I don't believe it was that simple. It has been my impression that mounted actions were taking place until the very end of the war, at least in the East. Thanks, John Miller

Another vote for Buford, for his actions at Gettysburg. Not sure about CSA cav leaders, maybe Hampton.

Heck, one could even argue Stephen Burbridge for his work in stopping Morgan's 1864 raid.

I like Wilder, but the body of work might be too small a sample size, like Bufford (who I also feel is a good commander at his level – As Ferd mentioned, even though he is off his rocker liking Thomas!). ;)

I am glad folks are doing a bit od digging and not just taking the normal approach, although I am still not thinking much of Forrest. ;)

Good topic!

I believe that Buford is slightly overrated. He dies just as the Union Cavalry is coming into its own and as a result misses the heyday of the AOP cavalry operations and doesn't get a chance to prove his mettle when the Union cavalry arm is at its' zenith, (not sure if that is the correct way to phrase that). He certainly seems to have performed well at Gettysburg but I wonder how hard he was pressed based on the low number of causalities he sustained, (I believe the casualty rate was in the single digits).

ColCampbell: In line with your remarks above concerning the lack of an operational method and corresponding lack of experience at any level higher than a regiment, if I am not mistaken, General Edwin Sumner was a cavalry commander before the Civil War and stated something to the effect that, he had never seen a formation higher than a squadron in any one place at any one time even though he spent forty years in the Army, (makes me wonder about the Mexican war though). Thanks, John Miller

Interesting piece by a Civil War roundtable comparing Stuart to Forrest…and concluding their endorsement of Forrest by quoting various contemporaries:

[begin quote]

When endeavouring to make comparisons of these two generals, account should be given to the views of their respective friends and foes.

Certainly Generals Joseph Johnston and Lee thought highly of Stuart as did Stonewall Jackson and the rest of the Confederate hierarchy in Richmond. Little or no reference or comment can be found to the views by Union generals as to their opinions of Stuart.

In Forrest's case, bearing in mind the bias in favour of West Point graduates in the Confederate mind, General Joseph Johnston has said: "…if Forrest had been an educated soldier no other Confederate general would have been heard of."

Johnston was later reported to say:

"General Forrest was the greatest soldier the Civil War produced even according to Lee and Jackson the full measure of their fame."

Again, it is reported that after the surrender at Appamattox, when asked by a Union officer who he thought his greatest general was, Lee is alleged to have replied:

"Sir, a gentleman I have never had the pleasure to meet, General Nathan Bedford Forrest."

Those who came against Forrest came to an early realisation that this was no common soldier and no ordinary commander. Grant reflecting upon the whole course of the Civil War he rated Forrest as:

"about the ablest cavalry general in the South."

Sherman made many comments about Forrest including:

"…that devil Forrest who must be hunted down and killed if it costs ten thousand lives and bankrupts the Federal treasury"

"…the most remarkable man our civil war produced on either side"

Again, Sherman who was considered to be a great strategist said of Forrest:

"…he had a genius for strategy which was original, and to me incomprehensible. There was no theory or art of war by which I could calculate with any degree of certainty what Forrest was up to. He always seemed to know what I was going to do next."

Thomas speaking of Hood's army after the battle of Nashville, said:

"With the exception of his rearguard his army had become a disheartened and disorganised rabble… The rearguard was undaunted and firm and did its work bravely to the last."

Hardly could a soldier have won more sincere recognition from those against whom he fought.

Perhaps the most unbiased opinion of Forrest came out of a meeting during the First World War when a British officer and US Colonel Seviers met in a rare bookshop in London. The British officer remarked that he was looking for a copy of Wyeth's life of Forrest. He went on to say that officers of the British cavalry service studied Forrest's campaigns and methods and regarded him as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of English speaking commanders of mounted troops. The British officer was Sir Douglas Haig whose troops had just fought and won the first battle of Ypres in France.

Based on all available information including various opinions expressed from both sides of the conflict, the most reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the Wizard of the Saddle, Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest, was the best commander of cavalry, both in the Confederate Army and throughout the Civil War itself.

{end quote}

Source: PDF link

Blue, Custer; Gray, Hampton

Perhaps a special case, and only commanding at battalion level, but the Confederate J S Mosby might be a contender

John Buford and Wade Hampton, best of their respective side. It's a shame that Buford passed and Sheridan got what should have been his slot.

Forrest – his side called him a Wizard and the other side called him a devil, can't argue with those credentials.

I would cast my vote also for Forrest, but grahambeyrout beat me to the punch with Moseby. Who else did so much with so little? Heck, he even had his own Confederacy.

Forrest was very good in combat, as a raider and as a counter-raider, but he was not much use as the eyes and ears of an army.

What Don said. Bragg was bamboozled by Rosecrans during the Tullahoma campaign when he had just as many mounted troops as the enemy. He was being bamboozled again during the Chickamauga campaign until a Chicago newspaper gave away Rosecrans' plan. What comes of having two competing cavalry corps in one army. What recon?

ColCampbell: Regarding the comments I posted above as to General Sumner's statement about never seeing a formation larger than a squadron in one place, I could not remember where I read that so I investigated further. As a result it seems I have made an egregious error. It appears to have been highly unlikely that he made any such statement as he was the commander of the cavalry school of instruction at Carlisle Pa. before the Civil War. Sorry for the misinformation!!! John Miller

Sheridan

Sheridan (along with Custer) got his behind handed to him at Trevilian Station by both Hampton and F. Lee.

He accomplished his mission, screening Grant's river crossing, but he left the bulk of the CSA cavalry in good form (for their situation).