Forrest Was Forrest a Bad Commander?

[10th Michigan Infantry]

So I came across this article which proclaims Forrest to have been the worst general of the war. Reading it, it just seems like a hitpiece on Forrest rather than actual history, though I thought I'd share it anyways for discussion.

This Beloved Confederate General Was One of the Worst Military Leaders in History

Nathan Bedford Forrest was pretty bad at his job.

slate.com

 

[BillO]

Congratulations you made me look. I didn't bother to read it but I did look up the author.
All I'll say is consider the source is Slate. Truly a waste of electrons.

 

[JerryD]

So, I went ahead and read it. The argument boils down to this:

"The argument against Forrest's greatness rests on three legs: his personal failings as a man, his inability to provide the Confederacy with capable military leadership above the tactical level, and the flawed example he set for future generations, thereby inflicting continuing and sustained damage to his nation."

On the first point, the author makes perhaps his best point in that he provides numerous examples of his famously difficult personality, both towards subordinates and superiors.

On the second point, I'm not sure the CSA was looking for anything from Forrest above the tactical level, and admittedly, he was a master of tactics.

On the last point, I would dispute being an example for future generations is germane to his effectiveness as a commander.

In short, the article is a hitjob, and IMO, not to be taken seriously.

 

[19thGeorgia]

Forrest's role was to be a big thorn in the side of the Union. I believe he made his mark. Sherman wanted Forrest killed: "It must be done, if it costs ten thousand lives and breaks the Treasury." No one else said anything like that about any other Confederate general.

 

[rpkennedy]

As a combat commander, he was excellent. As a cavalry officer, he was very poor. His ability to work within an army also left a lot to be desired.

He was probably the best raider/striker that the war produced but he repeatedly failed when acting as traditional cavalry and butted heads with almost every superior with whom he contacted.

Ryan

 

[Stone in the wall]

Climbed to rank of a General from the rank of Private. Must have been doing a good job.

 

[tony_gunter]

On the second point, I'm not sure the CSA was looking for anything from Forrest above the tactical level, and admittedly, he was a master of tactics.

To go a little deeper than this, in north Mississippi and West Tennessee he was the right man at the right place with the right troops at the right time.

It was a back water section of the war staffed variously with a scattering of Federal infantry, garrison troops, and cavalry. The Federal cavalry was fairly substandard, and didn't really have any sense of how to utilize their cavalry in a combined arms body beyond scouting and screening. Forrest's troopers were largely mounted infantry, which had a decided advantage over the Federal cavalry prior to the dissemination of repeating carbines. In Forrest's greatest victories, he would wait for the cavalry to arrive, attack, force the infantry to make a forced march to reach them, and defeat them both in detail. The infantry, exhausted from the forced march and disrupted by the panicked cavalry, made east targets.

In larger set battles of a more conventional nature, Forrest was mediocre at best.

 

[breckod]

Climbed to rank of a General from the rank of Private. Must have been doing a good job.

Private to Colonel was just the Governor of Tennessee giving Forrest a commission in exchange for recruiting, it's not a rising-through-the-ranks story.

 

[McClellandidnothingwrong]

Climbed to rank of a General from the rank of Private. Must have been doing a good job.

He also became a millionaire in 1800s which is pretty impressive. Even if it was selling slaves that was still something he was much better at than others. As for butting heads... well, everyone hated Bragg and afaik he got along at least ok with Hood.

 

[McClellandidnothingwrong]

To go a little deeper than this, in north Mississippi and West Tennessee he was the right man at the right place with the right troops at the right time.

Where do you think those troops came from? Thin air? He recruited, trained, motivated and threatened them.

 

[breckod]

He also became a millionaire in 1800s which is pretty impressive. Even if it was selling slaves that was still something he was much better at than others. As for butting heads... well, everyone hated Bragg and afaik he got along at least ok with Hood.

Forrest rather famously did not get along with Hood.

 

[JerryD]

To go a little deeper than this, in north Mississippi and West Tennessee he was the right man at the right place with the right troops at the right time.

It was a back water section of the war staffed variously with a scattering of Federal infantry, garrison troops, and cavalry. The Federal cavalry was fairly substandard, and didn't really have any sense of how to utilize their cavalry in a combined arms body beyond scouting and screening. Forrest's troopers were largely mounted infantry, which had a decided advantage over the Federal cavalry prior to the dissemination of repeating carbines. In Forrest's greatest victories, he would wait for the cavalry to arrive, attack, force the infantry to make a forced march to reach them, and defeat them both in detail. The infantry, exhausted from the forced march and disrupted by the panicked cavalry, made east targets.

In larger set battles of a more conventional nature, Forrest was mediocre at best.

Agree with almost all of this. I always felt that Forrest was one of the most overhyped personalities of the war. He mostly fought in small actions that really hade very little effect on the course of the war. He was more of a nuisance than anything else.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

"The argument against Forrest's greatness rests on three legs: his personal failings as a man, his inability to provide the Confederacy with capable military leadership above the tactical level, and the flawed example he set for future generations, thereby inflicting continuing and sustained damage to his nation."

Only 1 of these 3 have anything to do with NBF as a military leader. And I say that as someone who has never particularly liked the guy.

He also became a millionaire in 1800s which is pretty impressive. Even if it was selling slaves that was still something he was much better at than others.

Financial success only proves that you're good at making money. Sometimes it just proves you're lucky. It had nothing to do with greatness.

 

[bankerpapaw]

So I came across this article which proclaims Forrest to have been the worst general of the war. Reading it, it just seems like a hitpiece on Forrest rather than actual history, though I thought I'd share it anyways for discussion.

This Beloved Confederate General Was One of the Worst Military Leaders in History

Nathan Bedford Forrest was pretty bad at his job.

slate.com

I think Forrest did very well as a commander for being untrained in military affairs. He certainly knew how to rile Sherman!!

 

[gjpratt]

Climbed to rank of a General from the rank of Private. Must have been doing a good job.

Lieutenant General at that.

 

[gjpratt]

Where do you think those troops came from? Thin air? He recruited, trained, motivated and threatened them.

He also equipped and armed them at his own cost. At least the original regiment.

 

[Luke Freet]

So I came across this article which proclaims Forrest to have been the worst general of the war. Reading it, it just seems like a hitpiece on Forrest rather than actual history, though I thought I'd share it anyways for discussion.

This Beloved Confederate General Was One of the Worst Military Leaders in History

Nathan Bedford Forrest was pretty bad at his job.

slate.com

Is Forrest an overrated commander? Certainly true. Worst Confederate General? I can name a dozen more far worse than him.

I get the feeling this blithing contempt for Forrest by some people is a byproduct of the mythologizing of him and his exploits over the centuries, as well as his distasteful life outside of military matters.

Was Forrest a bad man? Yes, undeniably so. He was a slave trader before the war; he murdered one of his officer (though to be frank that officer did attempt to kill him first); oversaw his command's slaughter of surrendered black prisoners at Fort Pillow; and was the Grand Wizard of the KKK. Personally I find the man the scum of the earth.

But here's the thing. Hannibal sacrificed babies. Alexander the Great killed one of his own generals in a drunken stupor. Caesar's campaigns in Gaul were so brutal some historians consider his actions genocidal. Frederick the Great ruthlessly divided Poland between himself and the Russians and Austrians. Napoleon reinstituted slavery in France. Winfield Scott oversaw the Trail of Tears. Grant tried to expel the Jews from his department, blaming them for smuggling cotton. Sherman was quite racist towards black people, saying black soldiers were worth less than sandbags; not to mention his (and many others of America's best and brightest officers out of the war) actions against the Plains Indians in the brutal continuation of Manifest Destiny.

I believe it to be a farce to judge military competency of people based on their moral compass. War is where morality goes to die, and the people who fight them are never, and I mean NEVER saints.

 

[Luke Freet]

Is Forrest an overrated commander? Certainly true. Worst Confederate General? I can name a dozen more far worse than him.

I get the feeling this blithing contempt for Forrest by some people is a byproduct of the mythologizing of him and his exploits over the centuries, as well as his distasteful life outside of military matters.

Was Forrest a bad man? Yes, undeniably so. He was a slave trader before the war; he murdered one of his officer (though to be frank that officer did attempt to kill him first); oversaw his command's slaughter of surrendered black prisoners at Fort Pillow; and was the Grand Wizard of the KKK. Personally I find the man the scum of the earth.

But here's the thing. Hannibal sacrificed babies. Alexander the Great killed one of his own generals in a drunken stupor. Caesar's campaigns in Gaul were so brutal some historians consider his actions genocidal. Frederick the Great ruthlessly divided Poland between himself and the Russians and Austrians. Napoleon reinstituted slavery in France. Winfield Scott oversaw the Trail of Tears. Grant tried to expel the Jews from his department, blaming them for smuggling cotton. Sherman was quite racist towards black people, saying black soldiers were worth less than sandbags; not to mention his (and many others of America's best and brightest officers out of the war) actions against the Plains Indians in the brutal continuation of Manifest Destiny.

I believe it to be a farce to judge military competency of people based on their moral compass. War is where morality goes to die, and the people who fight them are never, and I mean NEVER saints.

Follow up:

Forrest did his best service in the first half of 1864. The man raised a corps of cavalry almost from scratch and was able to win two major cavalry fights (Okolona & Brice's Crossroads), taking Fort Pillow, and sneaking into Memphis and capturing the Union department commander. He did suffer a defeat at Tupelo, and historians suggest he could have operated in direct support of Johnston & Hood around Atlanta, but he was given the task of defending the interior of Mississippi & Alabama from Union raids, to keep the major rebel armies fed. And this he did superbly.

That said, he does have his issues. His actions at Chickamauga, shanghaing a small infantry division from Walker's Corps for a fruitless effort around Jay's Mill, and leaving the two brigades all but combat ineffective for the rest of the battle. He performed well during the initial stages of the Franklin-Nashville Campaign, removing Wilson's cavalry from the board and allowing Hood's infantry to make their blunder around Spring Hill (though Forrest had also involved himself in that debacle early in the battle). At Overall Creek, he commanded his cavalry and a reinforced division of infantry under General Bate. When Union forces attacked, Forrest was routed, with only one brigade of infantry (T. B. Smith's) keeping their organization.

On other campaigns, I cannot say too much, as I have not read enough in that regard. He's not the Union equivalent of John Pope, nor is he the reincarnation of Antoine Lasalle.

 

[JerryD]

Only 1 of these 3 have anything to do with NBF as a military leader. And I say that as someone who has never particularly liked the guy.

Generally I agree, but the author did use the "personal failings" point to discuss how his temper interfered with his relations with subordinate and officers, so you could argue that relates to him as a military leader as well. But yes, I am not a Forrest fan and think he is way over hyped by his supporters.

 

[GwilymT]

Congratulations you made me look. I didn't bother to read it but I did look up the author.
All I'll say is consider the source is Slate. Truly a waste of electrons.

No reason to not read something. If folks have to suffer through Abbeville screeds or, heaven forbid, small furry creature news, it doesn't mean there's nothing to learn. It also doesn't mean we have to agree with it but we don't know unless we read it.