What if Forrest had gotten control of the Army Of The Tennessee

I was reading in an issue of Civil War Times Illustrated long ago about this “What If.” The Confederate Army of Tennessee was a great fighting army but one whose morale was about as low as you can go. Desertion was an extremely serious problem for the Army of the Tennessee. Forrest was used to recruit troops. Everywhere he rode people flocked to join up with him. Then they would reassign the men to the depleted ranks. I know there is no need to describe the lack of able leadership the men of the Army of Tennessee suffered under.

Ok, here is my What If. What if Forrest had been given command of the Army of Tennessee instead of Hood? Or even after the battle of Nashville. The Army evaporated after Hoods twin actions of self destruction of Franklin and Nashville. Yet if it was known that Forrest was to be the commander, the desertions would have quit and many many would have rallied around his name. After Nashville I do not believe he could completely turn things around but I do believe he would have made it a longer war. Yet if given command prior to reentering Tennessse I think it could very well have spelled victory in the west. He was just that good. I think he would made the transition to command of the corps with flying colors. Can you imagine him with an entire army to fight with?

What do ya’ll think?

YMOS
tommy




(Message edited by aphillbilly on June 10, 2003)

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Here is where I think you got something. Forrest was just too dam good and could have very well changed things. At least made the war last longer, I don't know about a total turn-around, but it would have taken as much effort to crush him as it took for Lee. Who knows? Maybe...

Unionblue

Forrest, in charge of the Army of Tennessee, would have been very interesting. Hood, wasn't up for the job, as history shows. I've wondered if Hood, would have done better, if not for Davis's public speech, where he announced his plans, to send Hood's army westward into Tennessee, of which was overheard, by a union spy, and reported to Sherman, who sent word of this movement, so that plans could be made. Forrest, would have had to deal, with the same situation, that Hood did, but Forrest was far smarter, and wouldn't have made Hood's errors.
Certainly morale would have improved where it shouldn't have been a problem. As to whether Forrest, could have overcome the disadvantage, of the union army, knowing that his army was coming, I don't know. But, if there was a General that could have pulled it off, he was the one, to have done so.

[unionblue]

Charlie,

I am more inclined to believe that Hood had far more against him than just Davis's public speech. The man was a physical wreck, an arm and leg missing, taking drugs to combat the pain, and an attitude of attack no matter what the cost.

What I do find somewhat interesting is the idea that if Forrest had been placed in charge of the Army of the Tennessee, he could have had tremendous potential to change the course of the war. It is my opinion the Union held together and weathered a storm of defeats in the East by providing victories in the West. It was never a game of just numbers and who had the most of them. If that was the case, the South would have never left the Union.

Morale was the biggest factor in the war, especially in 1864. If Forrest had managed to defeat Grant at Missionary Ridge and go over on the offensive, its hard to tell how things would have worked out. I'm not saying that the South would have had the contest hands down, but by 1864, Lincoln was worried about getting reelected and for good reason. What if Forrest had managed to inflict some really huge defeats and losses on the North out West? Who can say for sure?

All I know if Lincoln had not been reelected, the South would have renewed hope and the next President of the US would have went to the peace table leaving a CSA intact.

YMOS,
Unionblue

I agree, about the condition of Hood. Even Gen. Lee, told Davis, that he didn't recommend Hood for job, but Davis went with Hood anyway. I don't know if Hood's attack at all cost, came from being pressured by Davis. It was Johnston's failure to attack Sherman, when Davis kept telling him to, that lead up to Hood's taking command.

We'll never know, whether Forrest could have turned things around. The odds were stacked heavily against the CSA, at this point in the conflict. I feel that Forrest would have done far better than Hood, but with Forrest being the only change, in the war effort, I don't see it changing the outcome.

Charlie

[blue_zouave]

All very interesting "if onlys." But it takes more than just one flashy character to win a war. Even if Forrest had been given command of the AOT, he would have had to deal with a staff of generals who had already shown their reluctance to obey orders, resupply problems, and Jefferson Davis. Forrest defeat Grant at Missionary Ridge? The Federal army was being reinforced and resupplied and the Confederate army was not. Forrest may have been a Wizard but he couldn't make supplies and troops appear out of thin air. Really huge defeats in the West? Again, not enough men and material to make it happen, and no place to get them.

The other problem with Forrest, for all his starbright flash, was that he was a "commoner," as Cleburne was a "foreigner." The Southron bluebloods would never allow him to rise above his humble birth and upbringing.

Zou

[unionblue]

Zou,

I understand your views and can almost except the idea that one man may have not made much of a difference in the outcome of the war, except for the following thoughts.

What if Grant had died at Shiloh? What if Lee had died at Harper's Ferry during the battle with John Brown? What if Meade had not been appointed to command the Army of the Potomac and Hooker had been left in charge? What if Lee's lost orders had not been found by Union men before the battle of Antietam? And an even bigger thought, what if Lincoln had lost the election of 1860 and Douglas or Breckinridge had won?

One person, at the right time, and the right place, can make a huge difference and maybe change what we consider a sure outcome.

In my own humble opinion, of course.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[cash]

Actually, when you look closely at Hood's situation, there's really no evidence he was taking drugs.

Regards,
Cash

[blue_zouave]

Neil, point taken, but things would have had to be a LOT different in a LOT of ways for Forrest ever to have been given command of an entire army.

All "what ifs" are so much straw grasping anyway. I never saw one end but with the idea that the Confederacy would have emerged victorious.

My greatest what if is, what if Rosecrans had been killed on the morning of the second day of Chickamauga? He would have been a great and brilliant hero in history, along the lines of Albert Sydney Johnston.

No wait, he could never have been a great and brilliant hero, he fought for the Union.

Zou

[SpartanGSG]

Hard to say if for all his fighting qualities he was enough of an administrator to understand the entire enchilada of tactics and logistics of commanding all the wings of the army. I will say this, he was in the minority in understanding in the spring of 1864 the need to begin strenuous attacking and disrupting Sherman's lines of supply and communication as a prelude to disrupting his advance and derailing one facet of Grant's multi pronged spring offensive to cripple the CSA. Knowing how disenchanted Richmond was with Johnson lack of offensive intentions it is hard for me to understand why they did not buy into this plan to just that. Unless I stand to be corrected, between Forrest and those in arms under Stephen Lee, the CSa had 7,000 ready willing and able horseman to inflict damage on the Federal command and control at that time.