Farnsworth shared one trait in common with Kilpatrick - he was aggressive. That's why it was so easy for Kilpatrick to convince him to attack.

Kilpatrick wasn't stupid, just a glory-hunter. His nick-name was Kill-Cavalry, bequeathed him by his own troopers, who were convinced he would earn his rep at their expense, if necessary. However, he was one of a limited breed in the AOP Cavalry Corps, a cavalryman who wanted to fight and went looking for the enemy. He was the kind of aggressive, younger officer that Grant was looking for in '64 to put some zip in the mounted arm.

He was a fairly effective cavalryman, with his significant lapses. At Gettysburg, he believed that the Rebel flank was unsecured, and hoped to get in among some trains. faulty recon failed to point out most of Hood's Division in the way.

I wonder if our man Johnson had a hand in this...?

Dave Powell

Dave,
Agree. I alway thought the B&L account sounded like two school boys double daring each other when Kilpatrick said "Do you refuse to obey my orders? If you are afraid to lead this charge, I will lead it..." They our dashing young Farnworth issued that great military line "take that back". What a way to fight a battle.

I've walked that ground, as I'm sure you have, and it is amazing that anyone could have ordered that charge.

Bill

General Farnsworth knew it was a suicide mission, but was goaded into leading the charge. I have read that General Kilpatrick ordered the charge to create a diversion, as he expected a union countercharge after the repulse of Pickett's Charge. However as there was no countercharge, the cavalry charge of a single regiment against infantry on high ground and behind stone walls was even more pointless.

After losing a quarter of the regiment, the charge was broken. Farnsworth was actually unhurt at this point, but for some reason he felt obliged to continue to show his courage by galloping along the enemy lines where he was soon killed. I always felt that this was the inspiration for the scene from _Dances With Wolves_ where Lt Dunbar does a similar feat.

Farnsworth's Charge inspired one of the neatest monuments on the field. A statue of Major Wells with drawn saber atop a block of granite. Affixed to the granite is a wonderful bas relief bronze plaque depicting the charge with faces of 20 individuals who participated in the charge meticulously hammered onto each figure. Wells is pictured out front with a raised sabre and Farnsworth is falling mortally wounded behind him. Another plaque on a foundational boulder lists the names of those depicted. It was erected by the survivors Association of Vermont Veterans in 1913. Anybody have any sources on the dedication ?

Does anybody have a copy of Longacre's _The Cavalry at Gettysburg_ handy and can share what is said about the Farnsworth charge there? It seems that it is an isolated bit of bravado shrouded in myth ( I dare you! ) and mystery (suicide by Farnsworth or not?)

As always, what sources are used by Longacre?

Having said book, I thought I'd check it out. Farnsworth's attack was actually part of a two-brigade attack mounted by Kilpatrick. Merritt's brigade was also involved, though dismounted. Merritt attacked first, and was repulsed. Then Farnsworth charged, overran one Alabama regiment, and then ran into trouble. Farnsworth rode to his death because he tried to return the way he came, and there the Alabamians were ready for him.

Predictably, accounts differ as to how much Farnsworth disputed the attack. A Capt. Pearson is the principle account, and it is highly critical of Kilpatrick, apparently. Pearson claims there was a loud disagreement over the attack, but other officers present later wrote that no such disagreement took place.

Gee, another round of recriminations and counter-charges about an incident at Gettysburg - go figure!

Dave Powell

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 19:50:55

Farnsworth shared one trait in common with Kilpatrick - he was aggressive. That's why it was so easy for Kilpatrick to convince him to attack.

Kilpatrick wasn't stupid, just a glory-hunter. His nick-name was Kill-Cavalry, bequeathed him by his own troopers, who were convinced he would earn his rep at their expense, if necessary. However, he was one of a limited breed in the AOP Cavalry Corps, a cavalryman who wanted to fight and went looking for the enemy. He was the kind of aggressive, younger officer that Grant was looking for in '64 to put some zip in the mounted arm.

He was a fairly effective cavalryman, with his significant lapses. At Gettysburg, he believed that the Rebel flank was unsecured, and hoped to get in among some trains. faulty recon failed to point out most of Hood's Division in the way.

I wonder if our man Johnson had a hand in this...?

Dave Powell

Dave,

Agree. I alway thought the B&L account sounded like two school boys double daring each other when Kilpatrick said "Do you refuse to obey my orders? If you are afraid to lead this charge, I will lead it..." They our dashing young Farnworth issued that great military line "take that back". What a way to fight a battle.

I've walked that ground, as I'm sure you have, and it is amazing that anyone could have ordered that charge.

Bill

Just for the record, Kilpatrick was even worse than Custer. There is no excuse for the order that led to Farnsworth's Charge, and to Farnsworth's death. In fact, if one studies the terrain, the area chosen by Kilpatrick was wretched for mounted operations: hilly, very rocky, and at the end of the Confederate line, where there was lots of artillery. If cavalry was to be utilized, it should have been dismounted.

Conversely, the area where Kilpatrick ordered a dismounted charge, the area which is today known as South Cavalry Field, was ideal for mounted operations, but Kilpatrick ordered a dismounted attack there. If one studies the terrain there, and is aware of the Confederate dispositions there (the very right flank of the Confederate line), it becomes clear that a mounted charge, properly supported by artillery and followed by infantry, may have broken Lee's flank, and possibly even have rolled it up. Instead, Kilpatrick the idiot orders the wrong types of attacks in both places, and both attacks fail miserably. Yet Kilpatrick is not sanctioned in any way, because he was a favorite of Pleasonton's.

What perplexes me even more is that Kilpatrick received division command at the same time as John Buford. What's wrong with this picture?

Eric Wittenberg

In a message dated 96-01-19 23:34:12 EST, Eric wrote: > > Instead, Kilpatrick the idiot orders the wrong types of attacks in >both places, and both attacks fail miserably. Yet Kilpatrick is not >sanctioned in any way, because he was a favorite of Pleasonton's.

Even worse, Eric, don't forget he couldn't even get these two attacks to act in concert, so that each went in piecemeal.

The evolution of the Union cavalry into an effective fighting force led to some pretty frustrating blind alleys, as men like Averell and Kilpatrick have shown.

Dave Powell