Face Off Stuart, Forrest, & Sheridan who?

[5fish]

Larry,

I can assume the teacher(Forrest) became the student and the student(Wilson) became the teacher. I can say the vile Forrest best student was an union officer named James Wilson.

In those last months of the war when Wilson was terrorizing AL. and GA.. Where was that figure Forrest??

Larry, you must admit Forrest met his match in James Wilson. I will admit Wilson did have many advantages over Forrest but Wilson did take the fight to Forrest. One could compare it to the Grant vs Lee contest...

Just to much Yankee enginuity.....

[timewalker]

Originally Posted by 5fish

Larry,

I can assume the teacher(Forrest) became the student and the student(Wilson) became the teacher. I can say the vile Forrest best student was an union officer named James Wilson.

In those last months of the war when Wilson was terrorizing AL. and GA.. Where was that figure Forrest??

Larry, you must admit Forrest met his match in James Wilson. I will admit Wilson did have many advantages over Forrest but Wilson did take the fight to Forrest. One could compare it to the Grant vs Lee contest...

Just to much Yankee enginuity.....

Are we not comparing apples and oranges here? By this point in the war, it was getting virtually impossible, it appears, for the Confederacy to field a well-equipped cavalry force while the Union was able to lavishly equip their cavalry. While I admit that Union cavalry leadership and tactics were getting better and maybe even reached parity with the South, should we not also consider the sorry state of Confederate cavalry as a result of years of hard fighting and not enough remounts? By the time Sheriden beat Stuart, for instance, Stuarts horses were underfed and over-used. Does the fact that Sheriden beat Stuart under these conditions automatically make him the better cavalry officer?

[Irishtom29]

That the Confederate cavalry had a hard time getting remounts was a flaw in their system and as such one of the very causes of their cavalry's downfall; it's no excuse, it's a reason.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by 5fish

Larry,

I can assume the teacher(Forrest) became the student and the student(Wilson) became the teacher. I can say the vile Forrest best student was an union officer named James Wilson.

In those last months of the war when Wilson was terrorizing AL. and GA.. Where was that figure Forrest??

Larry, you must admit Forrest met his match in James Wilson. I will admit Wilson did have many advantages over Forrest but Wilson did take the fight to Forrest. One could compare it to the Grant vs Lee contest...

Just to much Yankee enginuity.....

5Fish, I can't tell for sure if you're simply trying to pull my emotional chains or if you're genuinely that un-informed with respect to N. B. Forrest who most of us Tennesseans simply refer to as 'the General'.

Forrest was not of the mindset to learn too much from Wilson, given the fact that at war's end, Forrest had accumulated four long years of intense 'on-the-job' training. Using the term 'vile' seems to indicate that you haven't spent much if any time actually studying the character and demeanor of old Bedford. He was a gentle man, except of course when it was time for battle. Then he would transform himself into a warrior that the Hulk would have been almost as proud of as many Confederate descendants are of the General today.

Wilson didn't 'terrorize' anyone, and certainly not the already essentially vacated (by the AOT) towns of Alabama and Georgia. Wilson was a class act. Forrest was well aware of that and the two became friends, as much so as possible given the circumstances. Forrest was in West Point, Mississippi to answer your question, trying to gain some recuperation from one of the worst winter campaigns in history. Forrest was not an armchair commander as you are, or should be, well aware.

Forrest and Wilson were certainly not matched by any stretch of the most warped imagination. Wilson was a US Army officer. Forrest was a leader of warriors, working to defend his homeland. Neither were dummies. Every time Wilson 'took the fight' to Forrest, he learned another lesson. Wilson was against a legend and was well aware of that fact.

I believe a comparison to Lee vs Grant is a bit of an overstatement with respect to Wilson and Forrest. (Don't leave Edward Hatch out of the mix, he was an integral part of the Tennessee campaign struggle against Forrest as well, not to mention Joe Wheeler.) Wilson and Forrest were in a very critical struggle in the winter of 1864-65, mostly Forrest trying to protect an army that should have been in Georgia rather than Tennessee in the first place.

For his efforts, Forrest was given a third star for his uniform which he proudly wore for about two months. Far more importantly, because of N.B. Forrest and E.C. Walthall, a few thousand Confederate soldiers where given the chance to continue their lives.

[richard]

In requards to the Union Cavalry being lavashly re supplied with feed and new horses at least in the west one needs to do some research on Gravely Springs and Waterloo.

In January of 1865, tons upon tons of hay, corn and other stores were piled along the river banks at these locations. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

The area offered little suport to the Union troops. There rations were down to 1 gt. of parched corn a day. From that ration they had to feed the horses too.

When the time came to move south, many of the regiments were dismounted in order to provide mounts for the others.

As early as June 1864, the Union Cavalry in Middle Tennessee could only mount about one fourth of the new cavalry regiments that came in to the area.

I don't see using the word lavish as being a good discription of the building of Union cavalry in the winter of 1864-1865.

[5fish]

I admit I do not know all the details of this person named Forrest but what I do know about him tickles my righteous bones within me.

The figure Forrest may have been a self made man but it was form the selling of flesh and during the Civil War he made have been a heck of a soldeir but Ft Pillow belmishes all else. After the war years he goes off and leads the KKK in TN. and threatens to overthrow the state government.

I know how everyone likes to embrace the "James Dean" rebel figures which Forrest embodies but he was no better a Gangster or Drug Lord of today.

Plus Larry, I do like to tickle your emotions about this Highwayman Forrest....

[Elennsar]

Note: I don't care for Forrest's morals (or lack thereof) one bit.

5fish, stop being a t--- and beating Forrest with every tired, exagerated, distorted, warped, and otherwise mutated story ever told about "the devil Forrest".

Was he a slave trader? Yes. Was this a bad thing? Yes.
Was Fort Pillow a massacre? Apparently. Was it his fault? In part.

Frankly, my impression of Forrest, the slave trading aside, is that he was a barbarian warlord.

This is not meant as an insult. But while some men are rough around the edges, Forrest's roughness was a little deeper.

Never the less, if he did give his word, it meant something (as far as I know), and he fought with a courage and skill...if ruthlessness...one must admire if one has any admiration for such things.

One thing that sort of defines Forrest for me, I'm not sure how to put in words what the image it creates is, but it creates a very real image of him.

Forrest was in charge of the Klan for a while. Then he decides "S---- this." and leaves.

Given that the Klan was a very nasty organization by that point...I think only a Forrest could get away with that.

And I'm glad Forrest wanted to. The man may have been ruthless and callous more than he should have been, but interested in cruelty or pretending to be something noble he wasn't (unlike some better spoken and well dressed ex-Confederates).

He was what he was, many aspects of that not so admirable, but presented fairly honestly.

Back to the original point.

Being a t--- to Larry is a really bad idea. A) It's going to annoy him, and that's a really bad idea for reasons I'm sure he can explain better than I can and B) It's going to annoy others, because beating into the ground that Forrest was sired by Satan is simply not true. Fort Pillow and his slave trading included.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by richard

In requards to the Union Cavalry being lavashly re supplied with feed and new horses at least in the west one needs to do some research on Gravely Springs and Waterloo.

In January of 1865, tons upon tons of hay, corn and other stores were piled along the river banks at these locations. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

The area offered little suport to the Union troops. There rations were down to 1 gt. of parched corn a day. From that ration they had to feed the horses too.

When the time came to move south, many of the regiments were dismounted in order to provide mounts for the others.

As early as June 1864, the Union Cavalry in Middle Tennessee could only mount about one fourth of the new cavalry regiments that came in to the area.

I don't see using the word lavish as being a good discription of the building of Union cavalry in the winter of 1864-1865.

Yo, Richard. The men of the 10th TN US Cav actually, with little nudging from the command, relinquished their mounts as did other units to supply Wilson's new cavalry at Waterloo. Most of the men of the 10th were getting up in years, GG Grandpa Cockerham was 31 at the time. They had fought the pursuit of Forrest as you well know and had made their contribution to the situation. The 10th was then sent to north Mississippi and New Johnsonville (what Forrest had left in one piece) for guard duty until war's end. As was the case with Forrest and the AOT, these Union soldiers were more than ready to head back home.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by 5fish

I admit I do not know all the details of this person named Forrest but what I do know about him tickles my righteous bones within me.

The figure Forrest may have been a self made man but it was form the selling of flesh and during the Civil War he made have been a heck of a soldeir but Ft Pillow belmishes all else. After the war years he goes off and leads the KKK in TN. and threatens to overthrow the state government.

I know how everyone likes to embrace the "James Dean" rebel figures which Forrest embodies but he was no better a Gangster or Drug Lord of today.

Plus Larry, I do like to tickle your emotions about this Highwayman Forrest....

On your first point, your position is painfully obvious. Forrest made his wealth from his two huge plantations just south of Memphis, one in Tennessee, the other across the river in Arkansas. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of the slaves that passed through the family establishment in Memphis wound up in those cotton fields. Bedford, Aaron and little Jeffrey all dealt in slaves. If you place yourself in that time period enough, you will realize it was legal and amounted to not much more than dealing in cars, from the white perspective. I'm sure there were men, ladies and children in the system who had a considerably different view. Alas, Forrest was not in control of any of that, nor did he protest. He was a businessman and reportedly a kind one at that, so far as possible. It's in the history.

Fort Pillow stands on it's own merits. Forrest was the commander of the attacking Confederate force. Check the score sheet for the results. He was exhonerated for his actions and the details have been brutally discussed on this forum for seemingly an eternity. Go read 'em if you wish.

Actually he didn't lead the klan until he became the figurehead. That 'honor' goes to young Capt. John Morton. They didn't threaten to overthrow the state "government". They promised and followed through on their promise. Confederate veterans and anyone apparently associated with the war were forbidden to vote, hold office or much of anything else during that period of carpetbaggers. Johnson appointed folks who were held in less than the highest of esteem by the returning Confederates. Here we call Confederates home folks.

What you apparently don't comprehend is that these men weren't rebels. Most of them, Forrest included, didn't vote for succession, at least not at first. Forrest had a financial interest in the slave trade, to be sure. He had a bigger stake in defense of his homeland and his very life. That got his attention in increasing amounts as the war progressed.

Forrest didn't embody his image and reputation. He lived it. I probably would have reacted much the same way as you ten or fifteen years ago, before I decided to do some studying. No one could have done these things without being a little bit crooked or off the path.

I was wrong.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by Elennsar

This is not meant as an insult. But while some men are rough around the edges, Forrest's roughness was a little deeper.

Actually the deeper you dig into the legacy of this man, the kinder he is and was. You coulda fooled me too.