Eastern theartre...J.E.B. or Forrest?

Who here would have preferred N B Forrest under Lee by 1862 in the East rather than JEB? I got this idea from some earlier posts I read tonight. This is a very subjective thing thus it is in the "what if" thread. Would Forrest have served Lee better than J.E.B.? Forrest wa a consumate professional....JEB still had a streak of the adolescent in him in my kinda sorta opinion but he was good and very talented. This from a Yank. I dont wanna tread on the toes of any of my Southern breathern but I have seen some dang near come to blows over this one in my years when I traveled the South. (Beer fueled disputes in Tenn) Forrest a hero in Tenn.

Nobody could have been as successful in Tennessee as Forrest. Why move him?

Why move him? To win the war in the East decisively by July 1863. Perception of events is often more powerful than reality. Media, etc. Insofar as the powerful papers were concerned, New York, Phil, Boston, etc. the war in the West was a sideshow. It was not...but the majority of the county, who still lived in the East at that time, felt that way....as many still do today! Ha...dig there on the effite Easterners who think the nation ends when ya leave New York City. Tenn was absolutly Hicksville insofar as the Easterners thought at that time...as many still do. Had Meade lost at Gettysburg the war, I truly believe, would have ended. Negotiated peace. THAT was close too close to the home of the power structure and the newspapers in that day. Naturally, I could be wrong. To be fair.

The war was won in the west.

I am with those who wonder why you would want to move either of these guys to the other theater, when they did so well in the theaters for which they were best suited. Of course you did say you were a Yank...

Can you elaborate a bit with some factual examples as to when and where this personality analysis made a tinker's goshdarn bit of difference in the outcome of anything? I keep seeing things like this said, and really... as long as you aren't marrying the guy, who cares?

If you bring up Gettysburg, prepare yourself.

Well, gee whiz, it was only a "what if". Designed just for fun and comment. I will say this. Forrest may have well served Lee better than did Jeb. Maybe. He, IMO had the greater stategic view and was a very serious killer and warrior...that be rough words but I feel they are accurate. He was hard war. Had he been hooked up with Lee in the East would that have been a better combo? I just tossing this out. I will NOT bring up Gettysburg. Now ,I gonna get the Stuart folks backs up but this is just a "what if". Hmmmm, Forrest unleased against the Yanks in the East...think about it. Again I refer you to perception...who is kicking butt. We kicked butt in the TET offensive in Nam...but the percetion spun by the media was something akin to a loss and the country bought it. Carry on.

I dont quite get your put-down. Outcomes in war are very much related to skill and intelligence and a grasp of the bigger picture. Jeb loved glory and his role. Forrest just wanted to kill and win the war. (That is what it is about. He, like Grant, understood this.) And no, I would not have married Forrest.

Well said... Thanks.

Would Forrest have the same relationship with Stonewall Jackson as Stuart did? Forrest would have to get along with him and Longstreet. Jackson, Longstreet, and A. P. Hill could be hard to get along with at times. Throw in D. H. Hill just for the fireworks. Remember he complimented Forrest's troopers by thinking they were infantry because they advanced so steadily under fire. He remarked that he hadn't seen a dead man with spurs on in Virginia.

The implication is that Stuart was not a serious warrior and lacked strategic vision. Do you have evidence to support this?

The implication is that Stuart had an overrated reputation brought about by media saturation, such that his actual contributions fall short of what we think they were. Is this a correct interpretation of what you are trying to say? If so, do you have evidence to support this?

The implication is that Stuart's personality, which you obviously dislike, prevented him from wanting (or being willing?) to kill the enemy and win the war. Do you have evidence to support this?

I get that you are getting a bigger kick out of Forrest's personality than Stuart's, which of course is perfectly fair, but I feel you are letting this spin your perception of Stuart's contributions and abilities.

Imho, I can't think of anybody in that crew except Stonewall Forrest wouldn't have gotten along with - they all knew their stuff and they were all fighters, and those were the types he worked well with. Both Longstreet and D H Hill were at Chickamauga as was Forrest. Stonewall and Forrest would have driven each other nuts. Forrest wasn't great at mindless obedience, which was what Stonewall mostly wanted, and if he wasn't told what to do he'd head off by his own lights - and be in the pokey if Jackson could catch him!

If Stuart HAD to go to Tennessee, he would have done well enough - Longstreet and D H Hill did well enough. Same with Forrest if he HAD to go to Virginia. But both men knew the country they were riding like the back of their hands, and most importantly, were related to dang near everybody in that country. That was one of the great disadvantages of the Union cavalry - they didn't know where the hidey holes and safe houses were, and didn't have cousins all over the place!

I think it's a mistake to think Stuart was too playful to be really serious. He was as serious as a heart attack and nearly gave several Union officers some. Everybody has their own way of taking off the tension - his was having a few parties, joking around and dressing to the nines. Forrest had horse races and swims, a few barbeques in the early days. Stuart had a strong streak of melancholy in his nature - the fabled Celtic blues, maybe! - and could sometimes be quite dark. Forrest had no sense of humor about war and, he was several years older than Stuart. He was always dark!

Old Forrest had a rather subtle, wry sense of humor. When he made his cotton gin flooring and grapevine bridge, it did well but started sagging toward the end of the wagons. So the men had to unload the corn and carry it by armloads across the river. Forrest grabbed the first load and so they went - but the guys were dead tired and started getting rummy, laughing and joking. Forrest glowered at them, then glowered at an aide. "They are making a regular corn shuckin' of this!" he growled - and they had to quieten down. Or, when he patted poor Streight on the shoulder and said, "All's fair in love and war, General!" (Who knew he read Shakespeare?)

But my favorite was in New York, if rather dark. Forrest and Willie were in their room sleeping when somebody started pounding on the door and not just a little bit. Willie went to see who it was, Forrest stayed in bed. It was a prim woman with an umbrella in one hand and a Bible in the other. She grandly swept Willie aside and wanted to know where his father was, then grandly swept into the bedroom. Forrest, with a bad case of bedhead, was sitting on the edge of the bed in his nightshirt. "Are you the rebel General Forrest?" she demanded. "Did you murder those dear colored people at Ft Pillow? Tell the truth, now! No prevaricating!" Forrest stood up, drew himself up to his full 6'2" height and said, "Yes, ma'am. I killed the men and women for my soldiers' supper and ate the babies myself for breakfast." She shrieked and ran screaming down the hallway, down the stairs and they could hear her screaming all the way down the street and around a corner...

Incidentally, in the little known factoids department, Forrest was said to have had a good singing voice by those few who heard it! I've always thought the Confederates would have won if the war had been a hootenanny. Lee could handle the bass, Jeb Stuart was a great baritone, A P Hill and Stonewall Jackson were excellent tenors - which is saying something since Jackson was so tone deaf he couldn't tell "Dixie" from "Yankee Doodle"! Grant was totally tone deaf, too, Sherman and Sheridan couldn't carry a tune in a bucket - none of the Union commanders had a good voice! (Well, maybe Rosecrans - he could sing...)

All this is fair and interesting. I did post this as a "what if" just for fun (sorta) and comments. Keep that in mind. Lay of the land seems to be a biggie in some of these responses. Fair enough. But, I always read, see, and note, that Nathan B Forrest was the best of the best. A military self-made Naploleon. Sooo, had he been with Lee as early as 1862 would anything have gone differently? That's all. Now, I like J.E.B. don't get me wrong here. Where are those who like Forrest? Loving JEB is fine but "what if" Lee had Forrest in the East when he took command? I put, obviously, Forrest's talents over Jeb. Ok JEB lovers.. execute me at dawn!! Heh. This is fun.

Oh, you're thinking of Johnsonville! Forrest liked to shoot the cannons whenever he got the chance and he got a chance at that battle. They were firing away like kids all right. Forrest said, "Look-a-there! Rickety-shay! I'll get 'er next round." He did.

BUT....in spite of where the "hidey" holes were, ,,,,well we know how it turned out.

The lack of knowledge of Southern terrain has, in my opinion, been overblown to a degree as a factor in the American Civil War. It was not the factor, IMO, as some seem to feel it was. I said terrain, not Southern folk... some of whom resisted any cooperation with Union forces. Big difference. The lay of the land was not a BIG unknown. Actually it was well know, cept for some roads that had not ever been mapped. Sherman addresses this in his memoirs. My 2 cents.