Also, Sears savages the “lost faith” quote that historians are so fond of quoting, pointing out that the officer who claimed to have been in on the conversation would, according to known troop dispositions, have been many miles away from Hooker’s HQ at the time it was supposed to have been said.

Personally, I think the quote had to have come from somewhere; I just can’t see someone making up something like that out of whole cloth, and it seems to fit Hooker’s boastful personality quite well. But still…

I would submit that one of the reasons the army didn’t capture the lesson of sending all of the cavalry away from the main body of the army was that the cavalry didn’t want the lesson captured.

They wanted to go on Stoneman’s raid and take the fight to the enemy. “They” here meaning senior cavalry leaders, not just Stoneman. They also thought that they had rendered good service upon their return. Granted, it did more for their confidence than any real, tangible damage to the enemy, but that was a result. As I read through old accounts and unit histories of the battle and raid, rarely do I see anyone from the cavalry say, “We should have been there” or “Things would have been different had we been there.” So in their eyes I don’t think the lesson was there to be captured.

The following year, again the cavalry wanted to be on the raid. I don’t think Sheridan was wrong in thinking that taking Stuart’s cavalry out of the area would hamper Lee and help Grant. I think he could have left Grant with a brigade or two of cavalry, though, and allowed him to better cover his flanks. But it’s not simply a case of blaming Sheridan. Everything that I’ve read indicates that all of the senior cavalry leaders favored the raid and were focused on taking the fight to Stuart’s cavalry.

In both cases, however, senior cavalry leaders and advisors wanted to be off on raids and taking the fight to the enemy instead of performing its primary mission of reconnaissance and security for the army. The people who should have raised the issue to the army leaders were interested in doing something else. Cavalry raids were a great tool and accomplished a lot during the war, but they didn’t supercede the arm’s primary role.

The answer is yes, Couch was next senior and would have been entitled to command of the army. His leaving the army was critical, as it made it possible for Meade–behind Couch and Reynolds in terms of seniority–to assume army command seven weeks later.

Yes, Sickles withdrew from the Hazel Grove position, but, as I will elaborate tomorrow, he apparently decided that he would never allow his command to be pounded after giving up high ground again as it had after giving up Hazel Grove. That, in turn, led specifically to the movement forward at Gettysburg.

Eric