Forrest Was Forrest a Bad Commander?

[JerryD]

You know it kind of is. Was in the 19th century too. The men disliked each other intensely up to Grant's death. The point should be to try and discover why that was the case. That's what I tried to do in my book. Btw before I stumbled on to Rosecrans and studied him I was a Grant admirer. All I've ever wanted to do on this site is share and hopefully discuss what I've learned over the years. Easier said than done.

And that is why you are wrong. It really is ok not to get caught up in their drama and respect both.

 

[breckod]

The history of why there was rancor between Grant's clique and others (and there were some comparable divisions and debates on the Reb side of course), the politics and personalities involved, is entirely fascinating honestly. That doesn't mean we necessarily should uncritically adopt our favorites' framing as correct today though!

 

[David Moore]

And that is why you are wrong. It really is ok not to get caught up in their drama and respect

But shouldn't a historian write about and document that drama? Isn't that drama - your word which is ok- a big part of the story? Shouldn't an historian give an informed assessment of who he thinks was (more) right?
I came to Rosecrans completely ignorant of him except for the general perception of him as a failed general. I think what I've discovered is important. My main fear was that I - an amateur- would never get it down on paper.
To not tell the full story would be irresponsible and even fraudulent.
I don't ask people to agree with that only to give it a fair hearing.

 

[David Moore]

The history of why there was rancor between Grant's clique and others (and there were some comparable divisions and debates on the Reb side of course), the politics and personalities involved, is entirely fascinating honestly. That doesn't mean we necessarily should uncritically adopt our favorites' framing as correct today though!

I think it's important to realize the real decision makers were in Washington and they were looking toward the presidential election in 1868 and even 1864.
This was the view of Garfield who was both a politician and a general.

 

[JerryD]

But shouldn't a historian write about and document that drama? Isn't that drama - your word which is ok- a big part of the story? Shouldn't an historian give an informed assessment of who he thinks was (more) right?
I came to Rosecrans completely ignorant of him except for the general perception of him as a failed general. I think what I've discovered is important. My main fear was that I - an amateur- would never get it down on paper.
To not tell the full story would be irresponsible and even fraudulent.
I don't ask people to agree with that only to give it a fair hearing.

I never said you shouldn't. I was responding to your post that you need to be fanboy of one or the other. I dont believe in being a fanboy of anyone.

I dont think anyone who is knowledgeable thinks of Rosecrans as a failed general. His Tullahoma Campaign could be considered one of the best campaigns of the war. But I agree he is underappreciated.

 

[David Moore]

I never said you shouldn't. I was responding to your post that you need to be fanboy of one or the other. I dont believe in being a fanboy of anyone.

I dont think anyone who is knowledgeable thinks of Rosecrans as a failed general. His Tullahoma Campaign could be considered one of the best campaigns of the war. But I agree he is underappreciated.

I'm talking 30+ years ago. Recent scholarship has been quite favorable to him.
Fanboy is an odious term I would never use. It has been used by others on this site. Less the word is mentioned the better.

 

[Cornpone and Molasses]

I remember Shelby Foote being a big fan of NBF on Ken Burn's The Civil War. I listened to a YouTube piece posted by Rebel Rally Point August 17 ,2020. In it Foote says that NBF used shotguns and pistols with his troops. " The pistol was semi-automatic and the shotguns were double barreled " . OK , the lesson is of course that a novelist is not an expert on firearms , but just maybe he wasn't such an expert on NBF either.

He really said semi-auto?!
Sounds like a Washington politician that legislates things that they know little or nothing about!

 

[JerryD]

I'm talking 30+ years ago. Recent scholarship has been quite favorable to him.
Fanboy is an odious term I would never use. It has been used by others on this site. Less the word is mentioned the better.

Its an accurate term, though, for those who take an obsessive approach to the general of their choice, and who feels the need to defend their chosen one excessively. Its an apt description for many on here, especially when they acknowledge they cant appreciate another general because it would somehow diminish their love of their general of choice, instead of taking a more balanced view.

Basically, when you call others "Grantists", you are calling them fanboys of Grant, as if they have an excessive opinion of Grant.

 

[Cornpone and Molasses]

Exactly. "Promoted" to lead a battalion he raised and equipped. Rich guy raises a battalion and made a Colonel. Let's not pretend Forrest's story is that of some lowly private who worked his way up to Colonel through fighting and service.

Not to change the subject but wasn't Major General Patrick Cleburne a private at the start of the Civil War? I believe he went from a private in a local Arkansas militia (Yell Rifles) to colonel. Was his promotion based on popularity or merit?

 

[breckod]

Not to change the subject but wasn't Major General Patrick Cleburne a private at the start of the Civil War? I believe he went from a private in a local Arkansas militia (Yell Rifles) to colonel. Was his promotion based on popularity or merit?

I'm sure others here know a lot more about Cleburne's early career than I do, but it looks like his militia company elected him captain, and then when they became a regiment after secession, he got elected colonel.

 

[David Moore]

Its an accurate term, though, for those who take an obsessive approach to the general of their choice, and who feels the need to defend their chosen one excessively. Its an apt description for many on here, especially when they acknowledge they cant appreciate another general because it would somehow diminish their love of their general of choice, instead of taking a more balanced view.

Basically, when you call others "Grantists", you are calling them fanboys of Grant, as if they have an excessive opinion of Grant.

So indirectly you're calling me a fanboy. Oh brother what a wreck this site can be. I assume you've never read my book so you have no idea what I really think. THAT is the problem with this. The uninformed are (self proclaimed) experts.
As I said to one of the Grantists I used the term because there are so many odd names that people who defend Grant use. It's a short cut. I'd love to be called a Rosecransist.

 

[JerryD]

So indirectly you're calling me a fanboy. Oh brother what a wreck this site can be. I assume you've never read my book so you have no idea what I really think. THAT is the problem with this. The uninformed are (self proclaimed) experts.
As I said to one of the Grantists I used the term because there are so many odd names that people who defend Grant use. It's a short cut. I'd love to be called a Rosecransist.

Well, I'd hate to be called a Grantist, or Rosecranist, or Leeist, or any other ist. It implies a closed mind and partisanship, which I think is detrimental to learning. They are all human, with their own strengths and weaknesses. But different strokes, I guess. I see way too many people on this site who view things through a prism aimed to put their beloved General in the best possible light, and to put their perceived rivals in the worst possible light, instead of having an open mind and trying to learn the truth. I dont know if that is you or not, but your statement that you cant appreciate Grant AND Rosecrans at the same time is telling.

One last thing, please identify by name the self proclaimed experts you rant about. Please identify the post when they self proclaimed that. Or is that a red herring you are throwing out to attack those you disagree with, instead of addressing the substance of their arguments?

 

[David Moore]

You seem to know my motivations. You seem to know about the Rosecrans Grant relationship. You spout pieties about historical figures exercising power and who in turn are being controlled by people exercising power that would be nieve in a f college freshman class. You'd be better off keeping quiet and learning from those who've done research on topics you don't about. Now go report me to the monitor.

 

[JerryD]

You seem to know my motivations. You seem to know about the Rosecrans Grant relationship. You spout pieties about historical figures exercising power and who in turn are being controlled by people exercising power that would be nieve in a f college freshman class. You'd be better off keeping quiet and learning from those who've done research on topics you don't about. Now go report me to the monitor.

I am only responding to what you have posted. I have no idea of your motivations, other than what you have said here, and have no idea why you would make such a claim. You seem to love to put words in peoples mouths that they never said. What "pieties about historical figures" have I spouted? That they are all human and have strengths and weaknesses? And you seem to keep returning to the point that because you did some research, we should all shelve our opinions developed over a lifetime of reading about the war and just accept your opinions. Do you see why that is unreasonable?

Also, still awaiting who the "self proclaimed experts" are that you keep bringing up. You have made that claim and I would love to see the post where someone self proclaimed that they are an expert. I've only seen one person on this thread make that claim.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I don't ask people to agree with that only to give it a fair hearing.

If you'd never posted on this site, or posted in a very different manner over the years, I'd probably have read your book by now. Your posts have not conveyed the impression of someone who gives a fair and nuanced analysis; quite the opposite. You come off as deeply partisan. It also seems like you never post here unless it's about how awful you think Grant was.

By way of comparison: I hope someday to read a book carefully reassessing the service of George McClellan, but not by either of the two resident Little Mac diehard apologists.

Lee and Forrest still need good modern biographies by someone who will give them a fair appraisal.

I think Dave Powell gave fair treatment of Rosecrans in his Tullahoma and Chickamauga books, and could probably do a good job with a much needed biography.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

I think Dave Powell gave fair treatment of Rosecrans in his Tullahoma and Chickamauga books, and could probably do a good job with a much needed biography.

Dave has other fish to fry--he's working on a five volume study of the Atlanta Campaign.

And, I might note that he had a co-author for the Tullahoma book....

 

[Kurtlg]

He really said semi-auto?!
Sounds like a Washington politician that legislates things that they know little or nothing about!

Yes he did say semi-automatic .

 

[breckod]

If you'd never posted on this site, or posted in a very different manner over the years, I'd probably have read your book by now. Your posts have not conveyed the impression of someone who gives a fair and nuanced analysis; quite the opposite. You come off as deeply partisan. It also seems like you never post here unless it's about how awful you think Grant was.

By way of comparison: I hope someday to read a book carefully reassessing the service of George McClellan, but not by either of the two resident Little Mac diehard apologists.

Lee and Forrest still need good modern biographies by someone who will give them a fair appraisal.

I think Dave Powell gave fair treatment of Rosecrans in his Tullahoma and Chickamauga books, and could probably do a good job with a much needed biography.

Speaking of a Forrest bio actually, since this is a Forrest thread and all, anyone read the Brian Steel Wills one and had an opinion of it? I liked his Thomas book.

 

[Cavalier]

Don't have a great many real strong opinions about Forrest one way or the other but after giving it a lot of thought I still have a really tough time believing that Lee expressed the opinion that NBF was the "greatest Confederate officer" as that Englishman claimed. That seems like one h--- of a stretch to me.

John

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

And, I might note that he had a co-author for the Tullahoma book....

Indeed, but you don't strike me as someone interested in writing a biography of Rosecrans.