When I first corrected your assertion on this unit your mistake could be classed as innocent error. However, since you persist, it qualifies as an outright lie. For those who missed it, this clown got his "info" from a reenactor website that contained NO source. Is your book this full of the same sort of material? Give us a real source for this claim or desist.
The Army ORs, ser. I, v. 44 show the unit served in the 17th Corps during the entire March to the Sea, most often as a lead element. MG Frank Blair, commander of the 17th Corps reported 16 killed, 73 wounded, and 19 missing from the 1 AL Cav for the campaign. (I, 44, 148). Doesn't sound like what you'd expect from a cushy assignment like HQ guard. You're not informed enough to understand how suspicious it sounds to claim an entire regiment was utilized as an HQ escort. Even more unlikely when the ORs show 7th Co. Ohio Sharpshooters as Sherman's HQ Guard (OR I, 44, 19). Do you know something Sherman's staff missed - like the presence of several hundred cavalrymen?
Here's what the 1 AL Cav was up to early in the campaign as described in correspondence from the 17th Corps AAG to George Spencer, Col of the 1st AL:
The major-general commanding [Blair] directs me to say to you that the outrages committed by your command during the march are becoming so common, and are of such an aggravated nature, that they call for some severe and instant mode of correction. Unless the pillaging of houses and wanton destruction of property by your regiment ceases at once, he will place every officer in it under arrest, and recommend them to the department commander for dishonorable dismissal from the service. (Or I, 44, 504-5)
Now tell me, do you believe a corps commander is going to give direct orders to a unit serving as his boss' escort. Not possible. Ever hear of chain of command?
So, you see, all you have backing you up is your persistence and your casual aquaintance with the facts. Still waiting on that source.
Don't tell that to Company K of the 15th Illinois Cavalry. Sherman didn't think very much of the 1st Alabama US Cavalry. One time during the Georgia campaign he actually ordered one of his commanders to have them move their camp so he wouldn't even have to look at them as he passed through the Army on his route. He complained about their loitering and appearance, making it clear that even the sight of them upset him. The 1st Alabama US Cavalry was an unattached unit mostly serving in Slocum's Left Wing at that time.
This might surprise you, but I grew up knowing this. I always heard it was brother against brother and father against son. There were many Southerners who didn't resign from the US Army at the outbreak. One of the most notable is the Rock of Chickamauga, George H. Thomas. No ground breaking revelation here.
What most fail to take into account when looking at slavery as the cause of the WTBS (and it was A cause), is the depth of the potential economic upheaval. Although the leading Southerners' (politicians/plantation owners) arrogance and rush to rebellion was the main catalyst for firing on Ft. Sumter, their mindset must be considered. What was the plan for emancipation of slaves? What would become of their investment. Slaves were property and there was much invested in their upkeep and maintenace. Who would share the monetary loss if their property (slaves) was liquidated by federal mandate (federal subsidies?)? The nonslave holder had equal concerns that had to be addressed...a potentially flooded job market, by skilled and unskilled laborers, most likely willing to work for much less. This is where this issue isn't just about slavery, but economics. Answers to these questions would have been interesting, but both the CSA and the USA took the road to war before alternative solutions were found.
The social issues resulting from a caste-like society were complex. The country had been segregated (for the most part) since its inception. The forced and rapid desegregation of the South after the war was the main reason Reconstruction was so bitter. Probably the reason that it stayed segregated into the 1960s (still that way in many places throughout the country...North and South). Its a shame that these issues weren't worked out peacefully, 600,000 dead is a high price for poor communication and arrogance (on both sides).
The WBTS was a watershed event in OUR history. Trying to paint it as black and white (no pun intended) is an oversimplification of the most complex event/era in OUR history. It also keeps US from learning the causeS of the event, and robs us of the insight to better understand ourselves as a county. Blacks served on both sides, I'm sure. Blacks were kept at arms length by both sides, too. What was true then is still true today...you can make people live together, but you can't make them accept each other or get along, unless there is a co-willingness to try. Hopefully, we'll get there some day.