Comments on: How the Union Cavalry Transformed into a Viable Force

By: marty hancock

marty hancock — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:58:22 +0000

Al,
First, best of luck with your new book.
Thanks for sharing your experience.

I believe you can make a distinction between info published in a book, in which the author is trying to establish himself as an expert and maybe make a few dollars in the meantime, and an amatuer blog, in which most of the participants have no such designs.
Not that that gives anyone carte blanche to throw garbage out there. But I think you’ll agree that someone publishing a book is subject to much closer scrutiny and should answer to a higher standard than those who simply enjoy the ’round table’ forum that a blog promotes.

By: Al Ovies

Al Ovies — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:12:42 +0000

Several years ago, I wrote a book on the activities of George Custer in Sheridan’s Shenandoah Valley Campaign entitled “Crossed Sabers.” It was a first effort for me and the culmination of many years of work, and was published at my own expense. One day while checking out how sales were doing on Amazon.com, I found that my book had been reviewed by one Eric Wittenberg, and I turned eagerly to it. I was definitely aware of who Eric was, and I looked forward eagerly to reading his review. Eric ripped me a new one!! At first I was disappointed, but after a little reflection I realized that he had been right on every point he had made. I emailed him and swore that my next effort would be better. I have since come to know Eric personally, and I can tell you that I have never met anyone more eager to help, more willing to pass on his incredible knowledge, and happier to see someone succeed. I am currently working on a second book, and I can tell you that his challenge to me has sparked me to strive to be better at something I love to do, and ratchet my work up to a much higher level. If I ever attain any level of success in this endeavor, it will only have been due to the unstinting assistance that Eric has given me over the years. Like me, Marty needs to make up his mind how to deal with Eric’s insights one way or the other, for better or for worse. As for me, all I can say is THANKS ERIC!!

By: marty hancock

marty hancock — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:24:50 +0000

J.D.
Very kind of you to comment.
Take it from a guy who has taken Civil War battlefield vacations, your words go a long way.
You’re right that this is how you learn.
For example, I’d have given short shrift to anyone who postulated that the North’s repeaters were not as big an advantage as one might think. But, after reading Craig’s comment, and how well he illustrates his point, I certainly stepped back and looked at that in a different light. Even something that seemed a given now becomes open to discussion. That’s the beauty of blogging.
As for the ‘civil war community’, as Joe puts it, whether we’re published authors, military history professors, or (if I may take the liberty) informed amatuers; at some point early in our lives we all saw or read something about the Civil War, and we were hooked, and the quest for more knowledge of it became a lifelong pursuit.
How’s that for a run-on sentence?
Thanks for your gracious message.

marty

ps….you’ve got to admit, my post may have inaccuracies, but you can’t say it ain’t got legs.

By: J. David Petruzzi

J. David Petruzzi — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 05:27:11 +0000

Marty,

You may know me as a bit of a cavalry guy as well
Without getting into specifics of your piece, I too applaud your efforts. Sure, several of the points raised have different interpretations and you may have some of the facts a bit off, but like others I applaud your efforts. Your overall point about the transformation of the Federal cavalry is well-taken and one of the topics I enjoy discussing the most.
Hang in there. Research hard and take the hits wherever and whenever they come. It will make you grow and learn. I’ve always said, I learn nothing while my gums are flapping – only when I shut up. Some criticisms are harder hitting than others, but they all will benefit YOU in the end – and that’s what matters.

J.D.

By: marty hancock

marty hancock — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:06:59 +0000

Jonathon,
Don’t count me out yet, its only a fleshwound!
Bryce,
Your account of Day 1 at Trevilian coincides with much of the account from Captain Rhodes that I quoted. I must admit, I was scratching my head when I was told that Hampton ran Sheridan into the ground. Your summary of the second day clarifies that, at least to my satisfaction.
The percentage of horse fatalities in Butler’s command is indeed staggering. I was aware. as we all are, of the shortage of southern horseflesh toward the end of the war, but even with that in mind those are jaw-dropping numbers.
Thanks also for the side note re Sheridan’s men shooting weakened horses rather than allowing them to possibly later serve as mounts for the Confederates. Thoroughly illustrates the availability of horse flesh for the North as well as the dearth of same that the South was faced with.
I’ll be glad to grab any book that you recommend. I’m presently about 2/3 of the way through ‘What Hath God Wrought.’
If you’ve not read it yet, you’ve got to pick it up. It really fills in the time period between the War of 1812 through the end of Andrew Jackson’s presidency. Wonderful read.
I’ll admit, though, that it is a little dry in spots, so I’m also reading ‘Flashman and the Angel of the Lord,’ by George MacDonald Frazier. Don’t tell anyone, though. Flashman’s kind of a guilty pleasure.
Marty

By: Bryce A. Suderow

Bryce A. Suderow — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:07:23 +0000

Marty,

I think you were correct in your listing three causes in particular for the Southern cavalry’s decline.

1. Loss of horses
2. Inferior weapons
3. Attrition of leadership and rank and file.

As an example of the attrition in horseflesh look at one of Lee’s cavalry brigades, Butler’s which consisted of the 4th, 5th and 6th SC Cavalry. In May 1864 tt came north from South Carolina with each regiment numbering over a thousand men each. By the time they fight at Burgess Mills on Oct. 27th the loss in horses had reduced each regiment to about one hundred men mounted.

Was Trevelians a Union or Confederate victory?

There are so many ways to measure these things that it is possible to argue both viewpoints.

I believe Sheridan failed to fulfill his mission. In Vol. 40, Part 1, p. 795 Sheridan summarizes his instructions for the operation:

“On the 6th of June I received instructions from General Meade and the lieutenant-general to proceed with two divisions of my corps to Charlottesville, for the purpose of cutting the Virginia Central Railroad, to unite, if possible, with Major General D. Hunter, whom I expected to met at or near Charlottesville, and bring his command over to the Army of the Potomac. There also appeared to be another object, viz, to remove the enemy’s cavalry from the south side of the Chickahominy, as, in case we attempted to cross to the James River, this large cavalry force could make such resistance at the difficult crossings as to give the enemy time to transfer his force to oppose the movement.”

Sheridan did not proceed to Charlottesville and join Hunter because Hampton fought him to a standstill at Trevelians. He did however, achieve one of Grant’s secondary objectives, to deprive Lee is much of his cavalry and it can be argued that this contributed to Lee’s failure to stop Grant’s army en route to the James. We’ll see what Gordon Rhea says in his upcoming book covering June 4 to June 18, 1864.

In the actual fighting at Trevelians the first day was obviously a Union victory. Hampton was driven back several miles and parts of his command were roughed up. However on the second day Sheridan launched a series of costly attacks against Hampton’s entrenched troopers which were repulsed with heavy loss. And Fitz Lee made a mounted attack and routed some of Sheridan’s men. Thus the second day was obviously Hampton’s victory.

It is interesting to note that during their retreat from Trevelians Sheridan’s men shot to death any horse that straggled, rather than allow him to be used in future by the Confederate cavalry.

I love discussing cavalry and hope we can share ideas and recommend books to each other.

Bryce

By: Jonathan Anderson

Jonathan Anderson — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:00:11 +0000

“I don’t mean to discourage anyone from researching and writing”

I think you just did.

By: marty hancock

marty hancock — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:01:06 +0000

Ted,
Thanks so much for your kind words and encouragement. I’m much better; my therapist tells me I should be able to blog again after a few more sessions.
Seriously, I’m glad I did not respond to the critical comment as scathingly as I nearly did. People such as yourself and Joe replied far more eloquently than I ever could.
I thank you again for taking the time to compose and send along a very thoughtful comment.

Craig,
Don’t think for a minute that I took your contribution as anything other than a valuable addition to my post, the kind of comment that any blogger hopes to generate. You’re a gentleman, and, if you’re not an expert, you could have fooled me. Your information, and the way you conveyed it, promotes dialog and thought, which is what I think this whole thing is all about.
Thanks for the thought. I’ll look forward to reading anything you post.

Regards,
Marty

By: Craig

Craig — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:14:44 +0000

Marty,
I do hope you did not take my comment in the wrong light. The comment was intended to simply add to a few things you’d mentioned. It gave me an opportunity to expand on some thoughts I had regarding the operations of the mounted arm. Some that I think are often overlooked with regard to the effectiveness (or in-effectiveness) of cavalry formations in the war. And by no means would I say I’m an expert in the topic.

It’s always a two edged sword when writing to a broad audience. Say what you know now, and as sure as the sun will rise, someone will point out something overlooked. On the other hand, if you stay silent, it is a thought not related and shared.

Craig.

By: Theodore P. Savas

Theodore P. Savas — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:11:52 +0000

Marty

I thank you for taking the time and trouble to write about anything on the Civil War. It is good and healthy for others to pick and prod at whatever you write, and you seem to realize that. That speaks highly of you and your character.

Indeed, that’s what the game is all about. Facts are important to get right, and many are debatable. Many, however, are not. The exchange of ideas and suggestions and sources make all of us better at what we love so much.

I think, though, that any feedback–public or private–should always be done in a respectful, optimistic, and helpful manner. (Unless you are a politician, in which case you should be strung up along Constitution Avenue, with a few carted off for raising along Main Street USA. But that’s for a different post.)

You are an amateur? Fine. Be proud you have the bug. The vast majority of writers on this subject are not professionals. Only a handful of the authors we have published are “professionals,” and frankly, I find working with many (not all, of course) of them much more difficult. Some know how to research but can’t write worth a darn; others know how to write well, but are terrible researchers; nearly all have an inflated sense of self-worth that makes me chuckle at their pomposity. So bring on the amateurs any day. Savas Beatie cut its teeth and made its reputation with guys who make their living doing everything but teaching and writing.

I cringe on occasion when I read something I published twenty years ago (and I am professionally trained as a historian); I cringe less today only because of the time and effort I have put behind the craft.

So keep reading, keep writing, and keep up the back and worth. I, for one, applaud the effort.

tps
Theodore P. Savas
Managing Director
Savas Beatie LLC
989 Governor Dr., Suite 102
P.O. Box 4527, El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
Phone: 916.941.6896; Fax: 916.941.6895
http://www.savasbeatie.com

Join us for behind-the-scenes publishing insights at
http://www.savasbeatie.blogspot.com and http://www.savasbeatiemarketing.blogspot.com