Forrest Was Forrest a Bad Commander?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks Breckod -- that's very helpful, and puts things in excellent context. I'm reading Cozzens Stone River book at the moment, and Sheridan (then an infantry commander) comes across as a conscientious and brave.

And let me also say I'm a bit newish to the study of the West; I've been researching my woodpile and identifying those who fought in the war. So far I have so far turned up 14 who were in the Army of Tennessee. (Two with Pemberton at Vicksburg. 21 in the ANV.) Are there any books you'd recommend as particularly good? I'm starting with Cozzens' trilogy, the old book by Stanley Horn and Thomas Connolley's two books, along with Grady McWhiney on Bragg, but you'll note those are Southern-centric. I'd like to look at the conflict from the U.S. side as well.
I'd be cautious with McWhiney, though I haven't read the Bragg book. I have heard repeatedly from discussion of it though that McWhiney was just really sick of Bragg by the end of that project (to be fair, who can blame him?) and it shows.

Connolly and Cozzens (I'd recommend Cozzens' Valley Campaign book as well) are both good to have. I'd recommend O. Edward Cunningham (Shiloh and the Western Campaign) and/or Timothy Smith (Conquer or Perish) on Shiloh, with a further recommendation for all of Smith's western campaign books. I'd also recommend Earl Hess and William Shea's book on Pea Ridge and Shea's book on Prairie Grove (Fields of Blood).

I'd get Dave Powell and Eric Wittenberg's book on Tullahoma and Powell's trilogy on Chickamauga, though if you just want one volume on Chickamauga, go with Powell's Maps of Chickamauga. I also like Powell's analysis of Ulysses S. Grant at Chattanooga, titled Impulse of Victory.

Mr Breckod, here's where you can help me. Can you list some of the more common "Lost Cause" myths/fictions?
I'm not sure what you're driving at here, if you've read Pollard and his contemporaries here, you already know this. I only mention it in the above post because while there's some common myths out there that originate from the Lost Cause (for instance, that Longstreet disobeyed orders to attack at sunrise at Gettysburg, that one comes straight from Early and Pendleton), I haven't even seen a serious claim that Nathan Bedford Forrest was a remarkably humane slave trader before.
 
Since this thread is about Nathan Bedford Forrest I would suggest if you want a discussion of the Lost Cause you start a separate thread on the subject.

A search of the site will also turn up many past threads on the subject.



No, I mean incredulous, as in unbelievable.

Thanks for the order/directive. I'll let mine host (@7th Mississippi) make that determination, however.

I know the meaning of "incredulous" and "incredible." My concern was with the grammar, not the meaning. I may well be wrong.

I've enjoyed our little chat; no need to continue. I hope you have a lovely weekend,
 
I'd be cautious with McWhiney, though I haven't read the Bragg book. I have heard repeatedly from discussion of it though that McWhiney was just really sick of Bragg by the end of that project (to be fair, who can blame him?) and it shows.

For a biography of Bragg I highly recommend Earl Hess over anyone else. He gives a very fair treatment in Braxton Bragg: The Most Hated Man of the Confederacy.
 
I suppose not, though if you don't mind me asking, what do you have against Custer?
Nothing in particular against him, actually, I just don't think his record is that standout. Never had independent command, performed well in most engagements, performed poorly at Trevilian Station. Quite good, but not rising to the level of great.
 
Might be a little controversial, but if I were forced to rank the top five Civil War cavalry men, they'd go as follows

1. Forrest
2. Stuart
3. Custer
4. Sheridan
5. Hampton

Unlike many other such lists, ranking Civil War cavalry generals requires some agreed definition of how you're defining cavalry and what makes a cavalry officer "best."

For example, your list seems to be "mounted units" and the principal criteria appears to be "best fighters."
 
Nothing in particular against him, actually, I just don't think his record is that standout. Never had independent command, performed well in most engagements, performed poorly at Trevilian Station. Quite good, but not rising to the level of great.

Didn't Custer's aggressiveness lead him into a trap at Buckland Mills, resulting in the Buckland Races? (IIRC, Kilpatrick was there too.)
 
Didn't Custer's aggressiveness lead him into a trap at Buckland Mills, resulting in the Buckland Races? (IIRC, Kilpatrick was there too.)
Off the top of my head, I was attributing that largely to Kilpatrick since he was the division commander, but maybe Custer was more individually responsible than I recall.
 
Unlike many other such lists, ranking Civil War cavalry generals requires some agreed definition of how you're defining cavalry and what makes a cavalry officer "best."

For example, your list seems to be "mounted units" and the principal criteria appears to be "best fighters."
Perhaps. I think Forrest, Sheridan, and Custer were excellent when it came to raiding, foraging, and fighting, but perhaps lacked in the roles of a traditional cavalry commander. Whereas Hampton and Stuart performed better in the roles assigned to traditional cavalry commanders.
 
I'd be cautious with McWhiney, though I haven't read the Bragg book. I have heard repeatedly from discussion of it though that McWhiney was just really sick of Bragg by the end of that project (to be fair, who can blame him?) and it shows.

Connolly and Cozzens (I'd recommend Cozzens' Valley CampaCreckod, ign book as well) are both good to have. I'd recommend O. Edward Cunningham (Shiloh and the Western Campaign) and/or Timothy Smith (Conquer or Perish) on Shiloh, with a further recommendation for all of Smith's western campaign books. I'd also recommend Earl Hess and William Shea's book on Pea Ridge and Shea's book on Prairie Grove (Fields of Blood).

I'd get Dave Powell and Eric Wittenberg's book on Tullahoma and Powell's trilogy on Chickamauga, though if you just want one volume on Chickamauga, go with Powell's Maps of Chickamauga. I also like Powell's analysis of Ulysses S. Grant at Chattanooga, titled Impulse of Victory.


I'm not sure what you're driving at here, if you've read Pollard and his contemporaries here, you already know this. I only mention it in the above post because while there's some common myths out there that originate from the Lost Cause (for instance, that Longstreet disobeyed orders to attack at sunrise at Gettysburg, that one comes straight from Early and Pendleton), I haven't even seen a serious claim that Nathan Bedford Forrest was a remarkably humane slave trader before.

Breckod, thanks very much -- all incredibly helpful. Cozzens I know (and also have his book on Corinth and Iuka); not Timothy Smith, but volumes on the individual campaigns are what I am really after (two to three on each is my usual preference). I do have the "Maps of Chickamauga," and hope there will be more from Savas Beattie focused on the Western Theater. Shiloh and Stones River come to mind immediately. Rosecrans always interested me, a personality as well as general. I have the Varney books on Grant and Rosecrans, but honestly don't know enough to have any sort of considered or thoughtful opinion. The book on Grant at Chattanooga also looks like the very thing I was seeking. While not the greatest admirer of Grant, he obviously had a genius for modern warfare of the industrial and logistical nature -- it could be argued that he was its first and still one of the more brilliant practitioners. (A very different skill set than those of Gen Lee, which is why debates about "who was better" are, to me, pointless.) I've always thought the "butcher" appellation unfair (Rhea provided a good argument against it in the Overland volumes). If anyone deserves it, it would be Hood at Atlanta and Franklin.

Earl Hess I know and like; his book on Bragg was a good corrective to the poor man's negative press. As alluded above, Wittenberg's book on Sheridan read a bit too much like a legal brief for me, and really accentuated the negative, with every action of Sheridan cast in a negative like. I do understand the issues with his personality, and I doubt I'd want to sit down for a beer with him, but he would appear to have been quite skilled as both an infantry and cavalry commander. I'll investigate the other volumes you recommended

Yes, McWhiney did abandon poor Bragg around 1862 (and I agree, who can blame him?), and a grad student finished Vol .II. (I have both, they're in the to-read pile). Also regarding McWhiney, his "Cracker Culture" underwhelmed me; I think he overstated fairly dramatically the "Celtic" influence in the South. In general, I think the "Scots Irish" settlement was more prevalent in Appalachia than the Deep South; one datapoint does not provide anything, but my people, who came in through Virginia in the 1670s and then migrated further South, originated in the West of England. I think that pattern of settlement was described in the "Seeds of Albion" book (I forgot the author). That said, there was a significant Irish presence in the Deep South, not as much as in NY or Boston, but it was more than generally recognized; Co. I in my great great grandfather's regiment (8th Alabama) was the Irish company, dockworkers from Mobile with Irish officers. I don't know that there was a dedicated Irish Brigade, like Meagher's lads (although wasn't there one from Tennessee?) And one also remembers Richard Dowling and his Irish cronies of the Jeff Davis Artillery who fought at the Sabine Pass.

But I digress - as someone observed, this is a thread about Forrest and I'm guilty of hijacking it into distant fields, and I should go elsewhere. My sincere apologies to all - I'll do my level best to skedaddle. thanks to all for an interesting discussion.
 
Last edited:
Unlike many other such lists, ranking Civil War cavalry generals requires some agreed definition of how you're defining cavalry and what makes a cavalry officer "best."

For example, your list seems to be "mounted units" and the principal criteria appears to be "best fighters."
I'd give the top three slots to Hampton, Stuart, and Buford, in that order (Buford gets third because he never got to serve as cavalry corps commander).
 
I'd give the top three slots to Hampton, Stuart, and Buford, in that order (Buford gets third because he never got to serve as cavalry corps commander).

That's Buford in your profile pic, correct? I always liked him.

Not to wander off course (again) but the changes in cavalry deployment and function from the Napoleonic period to the Civil War is incredibly interesting. The heavy cavalry, with their armor, were really the shock troops of Bonaparte's wars, with very specific functions. Much of Bonaparte's ill fortune from 1813 on was the lack of cavalry, meaning the lack of mounts. Hundreds of thousands died in the retreat from Moscow, and he also lost access to the stud farms of Prussia. (The Russian stud farms were also first rate. And the French were notorious for taking poor care of their horses.) Boney failed to achieve "strategic" type victories at Lutzen and Bautzen in 1813 due entirely to the absence of heavy cavalry to pursue and disperse the retreating Russians and Prussians (as he did with such dramatic effect after Jena-Austerlitz).

Sorry, there I go off-topic again. I'm just greatly enjoying this learned discussion.
 
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.
"Personally I find the man the scum of the earth"

Luke, I believe a thought like that will forever block you from appreciating his military performances.

And, I dare say that your examples have all been challenged and thus perhaps not to be trusted as totally truthful.
 
Was John B. Hood a good commander; was Dick Ewell; was Joe Hooker a good commander or was John Pope? IMO they were good commanders until they were promoted into positions where they were not so good. I think that Forrest was very good as a raider and disrupter of Union supply lines. As the commander of a cavalry wing of a full, regular army, not as much.
 
Was John B. Hood a good commander; was Dick Ewell; was Joe Hooker a good commander or was John Pope? IMO they were good commanders until they were promoted into positions where they were not so good. I think that Forrest was very good as a raider and disrupter of Union supply lines. As the commander of a cavalry wing of a full, regular army, not as much.
Never a truer word spoken. Hood was good as a regimental and brigade commander -- as long as his orders were to attack (and one of my people was with him in the 5th Texas) -- but as an army commander, I think his performance at Atlanta and Spring Hill/Franklin/Nashville could qualify as the most disastrous of the war by either side/any commander. At least Pope and Hooker brought their armies out of Virginia. I do realize Hood was recovering from two amputations, and possibly medicating with an opiate. But all the more reason he should have never been given the commanding general role. (Another great example, I think, of Jeff Davis' incredibly poor judgment in military affairs).
 
It's foolish to say that 50 Cent and the Barbie movie fall somewhat short of the standard represented by Wagner's Ring cycle and The Brothers Karamazov?

OK then. I've thoroughly enjoyed our little chat and it doesn't need to continue. Best wishes.
No, but its foolish to think 50 cent and Barbie movie is the sum total of US culture. So your premise is the premise of a fool.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top