Could Have Wilson Beaten Forrest...

[richard]

If Sherman had given the command of the Cavalry to Wilson in the spring of "64 instead of when he did, could he have trained his men to the point that they could have defeated Forrest before the fall of 1864?

[ole]

Probably not. Forrest was one of a kind. How do you train to defeat an enemy who simply doesn't follow any known set of rules? Wilson might have fielded twice Forrest's numbers and hounded him some, but I don't see catching him, much less defeating him.

Sherman, on his way to Atlanta, did very well in keeping Forrest off his railroad. Shutting Forrest down was quite another matter. The man was simply out of reach of conventional thinking. Kilpatrick was just about crazy enough to do it, but I'd suspect Forrest would have yanked his tail more than once or twice.

To make a short story longer. Nope.

Ole

[larry_cockerham]

Wilson had his chances to bag Forrest for more than a good full year all across northern Alabama and back and forth in Tennessee. Yes, Wilson came home with the trophy at war's end, but Forrest rode back to Memphis and went back to work. Wilson was a soldier, a very good and professional one at that. Given enough fresh men, horses and supplies he was able to defeat the exhausted Forrest (with Hatch's help). Forrest was a survivor: given an equal playing field (and toys to make war), ol' Bedford kicks butt. This from a great fan of James Harrison Wilson. One grandpa rode with Wilson (or at least his horseshoes did), another was in a wagon in the company of N.B. Forrest for two weeks in Dec 1864, having to fight Wilson's rowdy bunch of frozen yanks.
I've studied both men, Wilson and Forrest, for quite some time now. Give me an army and the rules of discipline and warfare necessary to operate it, I'll choose Wilson. Invade my homeland and I'll stand with Forrest who backed away from no army, but had enough sense to attack when the results were promising.

[richard]

It is well known that Sherman had little respect for the Cavalry. Yet, he provided Thomas with one of the best, or should I say that Grant did. What is intresting to me, is that Wilson had little respect for the Tennessee Cavalry units under his command. None of the Tennessee Cav. units followed Wilson in his march in '65. They were sent west and south towards Vicksburg. At least that is what members of the 2nd and 3rd Tenn Cav. stated in their history. I think that it was also true that only a few of these units were ever fully mounted. They were also poorly armed, at least compaired to a lot of Sherman's Cavalry. Lack of horses may have had a lot to do with Wilson's problems.

[ole]

Richard: I think you just said the force was never mounted that could bring Forrest down. And why not? He wasn't much more than a thorn. Not worth much more than harrassing. There were larger fish to fry in late '64. Forrest wasn't one of them. Other than keeping him busy, Sherman was ignoring him.

[richard]

Thinking ahead of my writing always get me in trouble. I should have said that even in to early '65 many of the Tennessee cavalry units did not have enough horses to be fully mounted. Some of the Indiana units arriving in Edgefield in mid July were only half mounted when when they got there. Horses were promiced to Wilson and were to arrive from St Louis but only a small number arrived. Thomas got on the wrong side of Johnson because of his horse round up in the Nashville area.

Very few of the Cavalry units had repeaters. Most of the new arms that that they had were the Galagher carbines, breach loaders. In one incident, men had to whittle down Springfield ammo to fit the carbines when they ran out of there issued ammo. Yes, I know that the Springfield was a paper or cloth cartage, and the other was metal, but it did work.

I agree that Forrest was a small player at that time but only because Sherman made sure that Forrest was kept busy away from the rail road. Still, Forrest wrecked havic on the rail lines south of Nashville down to Decater in the last week of September. He had less than 4000 men at that time. The greater portion of the Union Cavarly was scattered around western and southern middle Tennessee and Northern Alabama.

[larry_cockerham]

As far as Gen. Wilson is concerned, I happen to be a descendant of his most prized blacksmith in 1864. Wilson's cavalry, central figure being Edward Hatch was wasted after the attempt to kill of the Army of Tennessee after the battle of Nashville. December 12 known as cold Sunday was 13 below, couple of inches of ice with 4 inches of snow. That's why the battle for Nashville was so long in coming after Franklin. Wilson wrote to the effect that he had lost 5,000 horses in the period leading up to the AOT crossing at Bainbridge, AL of the Tennessee River on Dec 27. They were out of men and supplies. Wilson went back to sit by the fire in Nashville for a spell while the AOT went south to Northern Mississippi for a breath of warm air. Wilson went about getting new men, new horses and new guns which he assembled on the north side of the river between Waterloo and Gravelly Springs. Waiting for the snow to thaw, he was released to capture Mississippi and Alabama on March 22, 1865. Before he ran out of initiative, he had captured Forrest (battle of Selma on Apr 2 was the last hurrah for Forrest) and marched into Macon, Georgia before events in South Carolina and North Carolina made his efforts no longer needed.

[larry_cockerham]

With your considerations of Forrest, you must remember the period in which you evaluate him. Early war from 1861-early 1863 was a learning curve for him. He learned a lot from experience, after all his 3 months of education wasn't much to fall back on from a philosophical viewpoint. He was an accomplished businessman to say the least, but I'm sure he had a clerk or two hidden behind the door somewhere. Col. Kelly wrote most of the heavy stuff during the war. I digress. In early 1864 Forrest and his men were equal to the task of keeping any mounted forces they encountered at bay or in pow camps. General Hatch reported in the fall of 1864 that he had chased Forrest and Wheeler around northern Alabama for eight straight days with no sight of either. By late 1864, the war had taken it's toll. Confederate manpower and equipment simply couldn't match the Federal army. Still he was fighting and thinking until the end. Just ask the descendants of the US Cavalry whose blood filled Sugar Creek December 26, 1864.

[trice]

Originally Posted by richard

If Sherman had given the command of the Cavalry to Wilson in the spring of "64 instead of when he did, could he have trained his men to the point that they could have defeated Forrest before the fall of 1864?

I'd say not.

Wilson was essentially a staff officer in his first line command when he took the field with Sheridan in early 1864. He had a lot of learning to do in the saddle. Wilson did not do very well against Forrest in November-December of 1864 when he faced him, either.

When Wilson moved into Alabama in 1865, he had a fine force with superior weaponry, well-mounted (some units were dismounted and left behind to make sure the ones making the march were fully horsed). But he also had two other advantages:

1) a copy of Forrest's orders had been captured, showing the disposition of his cavalry, giving Wilson pretty much the same advantage McClellan had when a copy of Lee's orders were captured before Antietam.
2) the Prussian engineer who designed the defenses of Selma was captured. He was persuaded to give Wilson his copy of the plan of the entrenchments before Wilson moved on the city.

Given those advantages, Wilson acted decisively and aggressively to strike Forrest, preventing his scattered forces from concentrating. Obviously he had a firmness of purpose McClellan lacked, and his initiative deserves much credit. But even within the framework of 1865, Wilson wasn't playing on a level field here as he beat Forrest.

Regards,
Tim

[whitworth]

One must remember that Nathan Bedford Forrest was not part of General Joe Johnston's army in Georgia. Joe Wheeler, a West Point graduate, was in charge of the Confederate cavalry.
I believe Forrest got shelved by the Confederate leadership, early in 1864, and put in command in Mississippi and Alabama.
As great as some say Forrest was in command, the Confederacy never gave him a command of great importance. Union cavalry general Benjamin Grierson, a capable officer, was also bypassed for any greater command. Another volunteer, not a West Point graduate.
Pedigree counted for something in the Civil War; both sides.

Some may say the battle of Selma was unfair. But war is unfair. Valor doesn't always carry a battle. Nathan Bedford Forrest lost at Selma.