Question about the Battle of Franklin

Nytram01 · #1 11-08-2007, 08:06 AM

Having recently taken an extended interest in Confederate Generals Patrick Ronayne Cleburne and Nathan Bedford Forrest I have been wondering about their participation in the Batte of Franklin.

I consider both generals to be the greatest Confederate generals of the Western theatre and Forrest to be the greatest Cavalry commander of the entire war.

I know that Cleburne was killed at the battle and I know that Forrest was involved in some way as well but what I dont know is their views on the battle itself.

Did Cleburne and Forrest want to fight at Franklin or did they oppose battle there? And if they opposed the battle of Franklin why were the opinions of two of the Western theatres best generals just totally dissregarded?

richard · #2 11-08-2007, 08:29 AM

There are many good books about Franklin out there that should give you some great insite to the why's and how's of the battle.

The last part of your question is simple, they were not in command of the AOT. They were part of the big picture. They did what had to be done no matter what.

I

ole · #3 11-08-2007, 12:28 PM

That about says it all, Nytram. Although Forrest suggested alternatives and waxed a bit resentful, he still followed orders. As did Cleburne.

Follow your interest. Forrest was very good at what he did, but the "greatest" is a bit overboard.

ole

larry_cockerham · #4 11-09-2007, 01:00 PM

Ole wrote: "Follow your interest. Forrest was very good at what he did, but the "greatest" is a bit overboard."

Can you name one greater at "what he did"? There was only one Forrest who did "what he did".

ole · #5 11-09-2007, 03:13 PM

Where do you want to start, Larry? Forrest was a shade this side of a guerilla. Stuart did what he did quite well. As did Wilder. And Sherman. And Grant. Heck. Even Quantrill did what he did very well.

Are any of them the greatest? Cassius Clay was the greatest, although I suspect Tyson would tear him a new one. Rommel was the greatest, for a moment. So was Patton, Bradley and Ike. Even MacArthur had his moment of glory.

Guess I'm just too stingy with such terms as "greatest."

ole

Borderruffian · #6 11-09-2007, 05:15 PM

I tend to look at it that way also ole. Forrest was very good and did very well. However I also think Shelby, Wheeler, Mosby, Morgan and Hampton were also in the running IMO. I think it's hard to pick anyone General as "greatest" in his branch.

5fish · #7 11-11-2007, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Ole wrote: "Follow your interest. Forrest was very good at what he did, but the "greatest" is a bit overboard."

Can you name one greater at "what he did"? There was only one Forrest who did "what he did".

"What he Did" Lets talk about one of Forrest what he did. Streight's raid, This is where Forrest overtakes Union General Streight's mule cavalry in GA and bluffs Streight into surrendering a large force to a smaller one.

Lets put into context: Streights men were riding mules not horses like Forrest men were. This gave Forrest a great advantage over Streight. Forrest could out run Streight and out maneuver him as well. This gave Forrest the ability to pick when and where to fight Streight.

Streight's men were riding mules and that is a lot harder on the body then riding horses so Streight's men were worn out by the time they reach GA. Their stomach for a fight was just not there.

Streight does not know he out numbers Forrest's force. All he knows is he is deep inside enemy territory and his men seem demoralized.

It was not going to take much make Streight surrender for he knew he could not out run or out maneuver Forrest so fighting would only cause needless death.

What would you do within this setting? You're deep inside enemy lines and you are facing a force that can out maneuver you. The force facing you is most likely of equal side plus your men are exhausted. You know no reinforcements are on the way to help you but you don't know if your adversary as reinforcements coming.

Streight chose to surrender. What would have you done?

This story of Forrest bluffing a bigger force to surrender is always told but always told out of context. Once you see the whole picture Forrest accomplishment was not so amazing.

Forrest was a raider. What is a raider? A pirate. What is a pirate? a robber. What is a robber? a criminal! Gen. Forrest was a criminal but Gen. Stuart was warrior.

larry_cockerham · #8 11-11-2007, 10:26 AM

My friend, you'll never find where I've written that Bedford Forrest was a saint. He was a man at war, something he did with considerable skill. Forrest didn't choose the mules for Speight, that was his doing as far as I know. Here's some more of the story: Speight had caused considerable difficulty to Bedford's brother William. Some of this was a return of favor on the General's part. Messing with his brothers was an error:

Capt. William Hezekiah Forrest (third son): William ran slave businesses in St. Louis, Missouri and Vicksburg, Mississippi, buying slaves from Aaron. Jack Hurst, in his Nathan Bedford Forrest, A Biography wrote: “The day of the last Forrest and Maples sales recorded in the Register’s office, two younger Forrest brothers, William and Aaron, sold an eighteen-year-old slave named Bob for $1050 to Mary C. Temple.” William had a home in Memphis. He joined the Confederate Army on Jun 14, 1861 as a private along with brothers Nathan and Jeffrey. All were to receive considerably more rank as the war progressed.

July 10, 1862

Col. Nathan Bedford Forrest's brigade passed here enroute to its junction with additional units, to be followed by a further advance on the Federal garrison and stores at Murfreesboro. Leaving Chattanooga on July 9, the brigade here consisted of the 8th Texas Cavalry (Wharton), 2nd Georgia Cavalry (Lawton), and Woodward's Kentucky Cavalry Battalion, with a headquarters unit of 20 men, commanded by Captain William Forrest. Further accessions to strength were to join at McMinnville.

William served as a cavalry officer and led the charge against Col. Abel D. Streight’s column at the Battle of Sand Mountain in Days Gap, Alabama where he was wounded April 30, 1863. William skirmished for two miles before he received a ball through his thigh, breaking the bone. Several of his men were lost in this battle. Col. Streight’s men rode mules from their departure from steamships at Eastport, Mississippi. Gen. Nathan B. Forrest captured Streight’s entire command on May 3, 1864 at Cedar Bluff, Alabama near the Georgia state line. William died in Hickman County, Tennessee

You are a bit 'confused' on the following, perhaps:

You wrote: "Streight chose to surrender. What would have you done? NO CHOICE, SURRENDER.

This story of Forrest bluffing a bigger force to surrender is always told but always told out of context. Once you see the whole picture Forrest accomplishment was not so amazing. FORREST RARELY BLUFFED. WHEN SURRENDER WAS CALLED FOR HE USUALLY OPENED UP WITH CANNON FIRE TO CHANGE THE MIND OF THE COMMAND WHO REFUSED HIM.

Forrest was a raider. What is a raider? A pirate. What is a pirate? a robber. What is a robber? a criminal! Gen. Forrest was a criminal but Gen. Stuart was warrior."

YES, FORREST WAS A RAIDER ON MANY OCCASIONS. I WOULDN'T CALL HIM A ROBBER SO MUCH AS A BORROWER OF FINE YANKEE WEAPONS, WHICH HE PROCEEDED TO DEMONSTRATE THE PROPER USE OF. THAT ONLY MADE HIM A CRIMINAL IN THE EYES OF THE OFFENDED PARTY. FROM DECEMBER 7 UNTIL DECEMBER 28 1864 FORREST COMMANDED A FORCE OF AT LEAST 7,000 MEN AND KEPT SEVERAL YOUNG SOUTHERN MEN ALIVE AFTER NASHVILLE. HIS ADVICE TO BRAGG AND HOOD, AS EXAMPLES, PROVED SOMEWHAT MORE SOUND THAN THEIR DECISIONS AT CHICKAMAUGA AND FRANKLIN. AS FOR WARRIOR, THERE WASN'T MUCH COMPARISON BETWEEN FORREST AND STUART. 29 HORSES SHOT FROM BENEATH HIM AND SIX MEN KILLED HAND TO HAND. SOUNDS LIKE A WARRIOR.

richard · #9 11-11-2007, 03:11 PM

I think that he needs to look at what Forrest did in his Tennessee raid in the fall of 1864. Starting at Athens, Al in taking that fort with out a shot being fired. The only thing that slowed him down was a small but stubborn force at Sulphur Trestle. There 900 men in a small fort with two block houses held his force of 5000 men in a sharp battle from before daylight till almost noon. It was such a stubborn fight that Forrest expended over 800 rounds or artillery on the 111 USCT, the 9th Indiana Cavalry, and the 3rd Tennessee Cavalry US.

In the process of marching north along the railroad, over 12000 union men were chasing shadows all over the area.
In the end, Forrest caused the likes of Gen. Granger, Starkweather, Rossoue and others, to look like monkeys running around with there tails cut off. Forrest was under manned, under fed, and under supplied in this raid, but he managed to cause a great deal of damage and caused a hugh uproar among the Union Army.

ole · #10 11-11-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Forrest was under manned, under fed, and under supplied in this raid, but he managed to cause a great deal of damage and caused a hugh uproar among the Union Army.

A remarkable campaign, to be sure. But damage is not measured by the degree of consternation caused.

Did Sherman come back? Did Thomas panic? What exactly did he do except disrupt the sleep of a few generals?

ole