Context

Putting the Cavalry into context: The United States Army of the early 1800s

During the nineteenth century the American Cavalry forces underwent dramatic changes that corresponded to changes to our military forces. In the early 1800s the United States maintained a small standing army due to the desires of the state representatives in Congress and Senate. The standing forces were small and ill-equipped to defend the increasingly expanding borders of the United States. As can be seen in the Timeline, the territory of the United States vastly expanded in the early 1800s due to the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican American War. During this period the United States Army only had two units of "Dragoons", a unit similar to cavalry, and could not obtain funding from the government for more. Vice President Calhoun made the first real efforts to expand the Army following the War of 1812. Calhoun attempted to create a skeleton army that maintained the same number of units and officers while decreasing number of privates. Thus in the event of war the Army was still consisted of professional trained soldiers and volunteer privates would strengthen the standing units and be commanded by trained leaders. Ultimately Congress ignored this plan and decreased the army across unilaterally in 1821 (Prucha, 152). The soldiers who were sent to the Western frontier became hard workers, using axes and shovels more than muskets and cannons. They were tasked with constructing forts and pushing into the American wilderness in the form military roads and expansions.

The first change to American mounted troops occurred in the 1820s when a lengthy Missouri trade route required mobile troops to defend it. This route was the main artery of trade for the state and was attacked by Indians. The military looked to establish forts along the path to defend it and foot soldiers were ill-equipped to fight the mounted natives (Prucha, 238). The efforts of Quartermaster Thomas Jesup changed Congressional perception of the cavalry. Jesup compared the mounted forces to our naval forces; while forts with cannon can drive off pirates and are useful defenses, naval ships with the ability to pursue them are needed to ensure security. The same can be said about mounted forces on the frontier and the forts the United States had created there (Prucha, 239). Congress authorized the creation of a battalion of 600 mounted rangers in 1832. This unit supplied their own weapons and horses, made $1 a day for compensation of use of those weapon and horse, and were organized into six companies. These men enlisted for one year and were all lead by Major Henry Dodge who was appointed by President Jackson. Dodge and his rangers proved that mounted forces were needed in the West and softened the Congress’s view toward regular cavalry units. After a year the Rangers were disbanded, estimates showed that they cost over $100,000 more to maintain for a year than a regular regiment of dragoons (Prucha, 245). By 1838 the Senate approved a bill increasing the Army to just over fourteen thousand troops, doubling their size from 1828. This trend continued slowly into the 1840s, the number of cavalry regiments increasing to two. Still the threats on the frontier persisted. The nature of the enemy required a force that could live off the land like the natives or a logistical system that could supply the troops. The military needed a highly mobile force (Cavalry) or a very large army with enough defensive fortifications to defend the vast west. By 1848 there was 1 soldier per every 400 settlers in the west and for every 40 miles of land (Utley, Frontiersman in Blue, 9). While the Army and the West expanded with the growing nation during this period, the Army was never large enough to effectively defend the frontier. This was due to public opinion at the time not supporting a regular military force led by a central government. Ultimately the inadequate number of soldiers in the army hindered their ability on the frontier and resulted in violent interactions between whites and natives that began conflicts that would last for decades. The mission of the Army on the frontier was primarily upholding American dominion within the territorial limits of the U.S. against foreign encroachment and Indian nations, this role the army successfully filled despite its weaknesses (Prucha, 395). By 1855 the U.S. Army had two regiments of Dragoons, one regiment of mounted rifles and due to efforts of General Winfield Scott had created two new regiments of cavalry numbering seven hundred men. The variety of mounted forces in the Army proved useful on the plains but created an organizational problem in how they were named. These forces would be reorganized and renamed into the 1st through 5th Cavalry Regiments in 1861.

As the American Army was slowly realizing the importance of cavalry in the American West to combat the perceived threat posed by Native Americans to American settlers in the region, the states began their own disputes. When the southern states seceded in 1861 and the American Civil War began, the United States Regular Army was too small to handle the threat of Southern secession. There forces were limited and under strength. Of these there were only two regiments of cavalry and many officers deserted to the Southern cause. At the beginning of the Civil War the military commanders leading these large armies were trained in using Napoleonic styles of warfare that relied on large infantry formations supported by artillery. Thus as the war began, many officers failed to recognize the value of cavalry or use them effectively in the field. The likes of Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart and Colonel Nathan Bedford Forrest and their cavalry exploits were an exception to this early on. The Confederates were the first to show how effective cavalry could be. By the end of the War the Union had their own Corps of Cavalry numbering over ten thousand strong and led by Major General Phil Sheridan. Throughout the war thousands of volunteer cavalrymen served on both sides and by its end the military commanders had seen how effective large cavalry formations can be on the modern battlefield.

Image 1: Edwin Forbes' Union Cavalry capture Confederate guns at Culpeper. 1863.

Modern interpretations of the American West: The Importance of the U.S. Cavalry shaping the 'Mythic West'

Following the American Civil War, the Cavalry were deployed in greater numbers in the American West than ever before. The number of cavalry regiments had increased from two prior to the war to ten in 1866, most of which were deployed on the western frontier. While their exploits in the West are lesser known, the identity of the American West has become immortalized by them. The Cavalry and the Indian have become the popular image of what has been called the "Mythic West". The Cavalry are often depicted in film, books, and other forms of popular culture as defenders of Americans on the frontier and chasing away the mounted natives. These trends combined with the fascination surrounding George Armstrong Custer and his death at Little Bighorn have created a glorified depiction of the West. While these depictions may not always be true, they have accurate elements of Western history in them. The cavalry were important in the American conquest of the West and Phil Sheridan connects their exploits from the Civil War to their conquest of the West.

The purpose of this project is to examine this period of history and show how important the Cavalry were to the American West as well as Phil Sheridan's role in this. During this period the U.S. Cavalry units were deployed and used in the field more so than in any other period compared to their infantry counterparts. They also proved to be the most effective front line units to defend the American people on the West. As the military shifted strategies and used the cavalry as their primary force against the Native Americans during what became known as the "Indian Wars", the cavalry became immortalized with the West. To understand the history of the West it is impertaive that the cavalry are included in the narrative because of the impact that they had on events that transpired there.

Next Page.