GDG- What if: Buford (or replacement) and not Stuart

[Alan D. Brunelle]

J. David Petruzzi wrote:
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>
>
>   
>>> Anyways, I don't actually recall having read anything specific about
>>>       
> what would have been expected of the calvary if there were any down
> along the Emmitsburg road area, so I thought I'd throw this out.
>
> Alan>>
>
>
>
> Alan,
>
> I don't get to heavy into what-ifs (even those involving cavalry!) but I
> have to add that about 100 troopers of the 9th NY Cavalry (2 small
> companies) under Capt. Timothy Hanley were left by Buford to stay with
> Sickles.  Sickles then made them part of his HQ detail, and did not use them
> to do any type of scouting or recon.
>
> Therefore, the blanket statement one often hears that there was "no" cavalry
> left in Sickles' sector isn't really true.
>
> Hanley and the cavalrymen stayed with Sickles the entire day, and rejoined
> Buford's division late that night at Westminster.
>
> J.D. Petruzzi
>   
Hi J.D.

Here's a "firmer" what if, then: Would Sickles have been expected to 
have tactical control over a regimental- (or larger) sized calvary 
contingent? Or would Pleasanton (or someone else in the chain of 
command) given them specific orders? (I'm assuming the relatively small 
allotment of calvary were "given" to Sickles for his use, so the 
question is: Who typically would have been directing calvary objectives 
if a larger contingent were assigned?)

Thanks,
Alan