Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
I thought I did say so. Re-read my posts. I'm not rehashing it again. I stand by opinion. You seem somewhat irritated that I have that opinion in the first place, just going by the tone of your posts. Maybe I'm mis-reading that, but your responses seem to convey that message. I'd rather not get into the " tit for tat" posts that go on ad infinitum, just to try to convince you to validate my viewpoint. I don't care if you agree or not. But as I stated up front I think Forrest would make an extremely competent, effective, and charismatic commander, if he had had the opportunity. His extraordinary, inspirational leadership abilities combined with the AOT, could possibly have had a devastating effect on Federal opposition in that area of the west where it operated. I truly believe that.
Quote:
But he never, ever, demonstrated that he was capable of working within the AoT to accomplish its goals with anything beyond annoying the bejesus out of the AotT
. Forrest was extremely effective with the AOT in setting up a diversion at Spring Hill, fooling the Federal Cavalry commander, whose name escapes me at the moment, to ride in the wrong direction. If given full command of the AOT, his shrewd ability to anticipate his opponents manuevers , and his bold, fearless tactics used as a cavalry commander would serve him well. And with able, competent corps and divisional commanders he could put a significant hurt on any Federal resistance.
Shelby Foote said that the Civil War produced, or revealed two geniuses: one was Abraham Lincoln, the other was Nathan Bedford Forrest. I agree. Who's to say how far Forrest would have gone with the AOT if given command? Nobody knows or will know, but I think he would done very well.
Well, I guess I ended up re-hashing it once again after all, didn't I? Last time. That's all I'm saying on the matter.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
Ole, I'm afraid you may pass from this earth eventually with blue hair. What William is saying has some merit. Forrest, don't forget, had a very competent group of officers in his three cavalry divisions. The fact that the Confederacy had no logistical system after mid 1864 was not Forrest's fault. He supplied his armies by his skill and timing, from well-tested US Army supplies.
[The fact that the Confederacy had no logistical system after mid 1864 was not Forrest's fault. He supplied his armies by his skill and timing, from well-tested US Army supplies.[/quote]
A good point of Federally funded and provided provisions Larry. Though the marginally competent Nathaniel Banks rightfully earned the well deserved moniker "Commissary Banks", there are many others who certainly deserve their place in the team photo. Under the "what if" file, what if someone at some time and place in the past was able to compile statistics on the tonnage and monetary value in 1860s U.S. Dollars of captured stores, heavy and light weapons, munitions and animal stock and feedstock obtained by Confederate forces in the field. Those taken and destroyed from Pope alone would have rivaled the GDP of many smaller countries of the day. The amounts must be staggering and makes one wonder how much longer these served to sustain the CSA armies in the field beyond what Southern production could provide.
In the reality of the times, Nathan Bedford Forrest would never command an important Confederate army, until perhaps late in the war. Forrest lost that one at Selma, however small an army it was.
In the tenor of the times, Forrest was not West Point. Hood was West Point.
Forrest had fallen out of favor with higher command. His commands reflect that fact. If Forrest was seen as one of the great Confederate commanders by Jefferson Davis and General Lee, why didn't he replace Stuart in 1864.
If Forrest was one of the great commanders, why did General Johnston not have Forrest, instead of Joe Wheeler, in command of his cavalry. Joe Wheeler was West Point, as I recall. Forest was not.
In the reality of the times, Forrest never rose to the heights, many a historian places him.
Location: North Carolina is my home. I own 20 acres in Texas.
Posts: 39
It all came down to who was friends with Davis as to what position you were placed and how you were esteemed. Forrest never got a chance to rise to glorious heights because I believe he just wasn't good enough friends with Davis. I believe Forrest was an awesome General and could have won any battle he was tasked with and I am not a historian.
A non-gentleman slave trader, was in hot trouble with the Confederate hierarchy fairly early in the war, non-graduate of West Point, would rule the wizard of the saddle out of very high command.
Although Forrest was - hands down - one of the most reliable and tactically proficient generals of the war, I noticed something while reading the other day.
On more than two occasions Forrest questioned the validity of his subordinate's opinions or perfect knowledge of facts pertaining to the battlefield.
In two of the instances, Forrest disregarded the opinion of his subordinates and sent them into ambushes - resulting in high casualties. Once at Columbia in Nov. '64 and another at Spring Hill on the day preceeding Franklin.
You know how they say really smart people have no common sense - or people with great common sense aren't really that smart. Well, which was Forrest?
If he was willing to send men into severe danger against the recommendation of his subordinate commanders at the level that he already commanded, what would he do at a higher command level. Also, He had never commanded more than 6,000 men at any given time - he likely would have been a failure finding himself suddenly commanding 35,000 men coupled with all the logistical problems - supply food and ammunition that an army must have to operate.
I say he could easily have been a miserable failure. Thank goodness he ended his career as he did.
Generally speaking, Gunny, you are on target. Forrest, remember was essentially illiterate and was lucky to have Col. Kelly to write his letters. Could he have dealt with the bureaucracy that would have been required of high command, I doubt it. He found his place in history by being pretty dog-gone competent at the level he served with his three cavalry divisions and an occasional infantry supplement. What distinguishes Forrest from many others, is that he usually LED his men into battle. Rarely did he send them unless he was otherwise engaged at the time in another part of the battle.
Last edited by larry_cockerham; 08-24-2006 at 02:58 PM.
Forrest was very, very good at what he did. He did, however, give ample evidence that he did not play well wiith his superiors -- a situation that precluded his being given a chance to show that he was capable of orthodox command.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
