Most Overrated General?

[JPinta]

If you said to me "some people overrate Forrest," I would completely agree. In another comment, I mentioned the idea that he should have been given charge of a field army is ridiculous. There is no merit to that idea. Yet to say he is the most overrated general of the entire war has equal merit, that is to say zero.

I wholly agree.

Perhaps Forrest is a bit overrated, and this is in no small part due to Shelby Foote, but that there are people asserting that he is somehow the most overrated general of the war is down right comical .

If Uncle Billy Sherman himself told Stanton "Forrest is the very devil, If we must sacrifice 10,000 lives and bankrupt the Federal Treasury, it will be worth it. There will never be peace in Tennessee till Forrest is dead." does that not count for something? Frankly it matters little that he was lacking in administrative abilities, traditional army discipline, etc., this was war we are talking about, and he had a knack for it in his own way. If driving Sherman mad to the point of hyperbolically suggesting trading the life of 10,000 of his soldiers for the life of one man doesn't clearly demonstrate that knack I'm not sure what would.
I know he is a divisive figure and I am far from his greatest supporter, but I don't see how, knowing anything about the details of the Western theater at all, one could with a straight face put Forrest at the very bottom of any list of generals of the war (or very top of a negative list, such as is the case here). It does the man and the actions of those soldiers who fought under him quite an unjust disservice in my opinion.

 

[Elennsar]

It seems to me that most of the arguments mounted against Forrest would be best directed against John Hunt Morgan, who was only a raider, and one who eventually became so reckless as to destroy himself.

Come to think of it, Morgan would be ten times a better candidate for "most overrated general" than Forrest, and yet no one has mentioned him yet. Why? Because people love denigrating Forrest, yet somehow doing the same thing to Morgan doesn't get books published or score PC points with the peanut gallery....

I write that and I think anyone who knows my record here knows that I am NOT a Lost Causer or Neo-Confederate. Not by a hundred miles.

Is Morgan's reputation "one of the best cavalry generals of the war"? Because I cannot think of a single time I've heard him described in such glowing terms, but there are not very many people who hesitate before describing Forrest in those terms.

That's why. Not some bizarre obsession with denigrating Forrest for the sake of it but the fact Forrest's reputation is grossly exaggerated.

I'm not saying Morgan was a good general or a good cavalryman. But it would be pretty hard for someone with a much lesser reputation than Forrest as a cavalryman to be a better candidate for "overrated".

If you want to talk about Forrest as ten times the general Morgan was, I'm not sure even Eric (who mentioned Forrest for overrated in this thread) would argue.

If you said to me "some people overrate Forrest," I would completely agree. In another comment, I mentioned the idea that he should have been given charge of a field army is ridiculous. There is no merit to that idea. Yet to say he is the most overrated general of the entire war has equal merit, that is to say zero. There are several generals with high reputations and only a fraction of the accomplishment, so to say Forrest is more overrated than them is laughable, and points not to the facts of the case but to pushing an agenda.

Are their reputations relative to their accomplishments as inflated as Forrest's?

Looking at Gallagher's list (if you have other examples I'd happily see them but I keep telling folks, I'm not a telepath, so "several generals" doesn't allow me to say anything):

Joe Johnston may have a high reputation and less to show for it than Forrest, but his reputation is a lot lower than Forrest's even among his defenders.

John Reynolds? Reynolds is usually listed as a good officer who might have been able to lead the Army of the Potomac, but I've never heard anyone put him among "the best infantry generals of the war". "Best of the Army of the Potomac" is not quite the same thing given the reputation of the AotP's generals.

Mosby's career I'm not familiar with, and I think Gallagher's explanation for why Chamberlain for #5 is defensible.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

By putting Forrest at the top of his list and then mentioning Chamberlain at all, Gallagher is showing himself to be full of sh*te. Up to his eyeballs, in fact.

Forrest was one of the best cavalry generals of the war. Period. In terms of raiding and fighting, he was undeniably the best. Others certainly surpassed him in intelligence collecting and providing army security, but those are only two jobs in the cavalry roster.

As lionized as Chamberlain is, no one rates him past the jobs he actually carried out. He is admired as a heroic figure, not as a brilliant strategist. In those terms, let's face it, where someone does something is every bit as important as what he actually does.

Jesus! Reading that article has me so boiling it has actually taken Gallagher down several notches in my estimation. I was thinking of picking up his book about Chancellorsville, but now I don't think I will!

Respectfully, you are dead wrong about Forrest. Under no definition of "cavalryman" does he qualify. As a commander of mounted infantry, perhaps. But under no circumstances does he qualify to be called a cavalryman. Nothing of what he did qualifies as cavalry tactics or strategy.

When it comes to fighting, I'll take Wade Hampton ANY day of the week, thank you very much. Hampton never lost a battle where he commanded the cavalry. Forrest certainly could never claim that.

And, if you bothered to research the career of William Woods Averell, I believe you will find that he was, without very much doubt at all, THE most successful and most accomplished raider of the Civil War.

Not to mention the fact that Forrest's well-document insubordination made him 100% worthless in any capacity than as an independent command. All of that means that he was nothing more than John Mosby on a larger scale. Hardly worthy of the encomium that you pay him. I suggest doing a little research.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

If you want to talk about Forrest as ten times the general Morgan was, I'm not sure even Eric (who mentioned Forrest for overrated in this thread) would argue.

Morgan was pretty atrocious, if the truth be told. He also was insubordinate, he was pretty useless in gathering intelligence, and he was terrible tactically. But for his brother-in-law, Basil W. Duke, who was very capable, he would have been a bigger disaster than what he was. The one thing Morgan had going for him was charisma.

Having said all of that, it's comparing apples and oranges. Morgan at least performed the actual role of a cavalryman most of the time and didn't have to be an independent command because he was incapable of working with anyone else, like Forrest.....

 

[Elennsar]

I wholly agree.

Perhaps Forrest is a bit overrated, and this is in no small part due to Shelby Foote, but that there are people asserting that he is somehow the most overrated general of the war is down right comical .

If Uncle Billy Sherman himself told Stanton "Forrest is the very devil, If we must sacrifice 10,000 lives and bankrupt the Federal Treasury, it will be worth it. There will never be peace in Tennessee till Forrest is dead." does that not count for something?

So General Overblown Emotional Statements writes an overblown emotioanl statement about Forrest and that's greater proof of Forrest's ability than . . . what exactly did Sherman do to respond to Brice's Crossroads besides that particular bit of overwrought prose?

Because that's the real judge of how worried about Forrest Sherman was. That's the judgment of the general commanding the armies operating in the area, not merely the words of someone who regularly wrote in passionate and exaggerated language.

http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar&cc=moawar&idno=waro0078&node=waro0078:3&view=image&seq=125&size=100

http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/tupelo.html

To put that in perspective, Pleasanton had about 12,000 men at Brandy Station.

I don't find Forrest the most overrated general of the war - although I like Eric's argument much better than Gallagher's - but that quote of Sherman's in and of itself lacks substance.

 

[Elennsar]

Morgan was pretty atrocious, if the truth be told. He also was insubordinate, he was pretty useless in gathering intelligence, and he was terrible tactically. But for his brother-in-law, Basil W. Duke, who was very capable, he would have been a bigger disaster than what he was. The one thing Morgan had going for him was charisma.

Having said all of that, it's comparing apples and oranges. Morgan at least performed the actual role of a cavalryman most of the time and didn't have to be an independent command because he was incapable of working with anyone else, like Forrest.....

Speaking of Forrest being a bad subordinate, while I have the chance to ask - have you uncovered anything in your research of Forrest on the issue of how "And Bragg took his command out from under him." that is brought up as happening on multiple occasions when Forrest is discussed?

Because I'm kind of suspecting that while Bragg doubtlessly handled it with his usual tact, exactly what happened wasn't that specular.

 

[JPinta]

Elennsar I merely mean to say that a complete dismissal of Forrest (i.e. a ranking him as the most overrated of all-time) seems to directly contrast with the opinions of those alive during the war, both north and south, both civilian and military. I'm not saying Forrest was the greatest hero, general, southerner, etc. of the war, I'm not saying he was the bane of "General Overblown Emotional Statements" as you so eloquently called Cump, I'm not even saying he was necessarily anywhere near the top, but at the very bottom? Come on, there were people like AS Johnston and Phil Sheridan who fought in this same war! Have we forgotten that?

 

[CSA Today]

My compliments Major CSA, Please. Let's not twist this. My cited comparison is not a head-to-head comparison of actual contact between the two, and not intended as such. This is something you inserted. The point of the article is Lee's total number of casualties in all battles fought versus Grant's total number of casualties in all battles fought. Lee's casualties outnumber Grant's which, as a result, prompt me to assess Gen. Lee as being overrated. I also rush to point-out that because of limited resources, Lee simply did not have the resources available to him - making casualties even more critical.

***** However in commenting on the "Overland Campaign," by this stage of the war, Grant did employ a "berserker" or "brute force" strategy where he hoped to put an end to the hostilities by taking advantage of his superior numerical and seemingly unlimited resources. His reputation suffered dearly, but it hastened the end of the war.*****

I'll put-up the side-by-side comparison tomorrow for your edification.

Did you consider the number, size and intensity of battles fought by Lee and Grant before coming to this conclusion?
By your rationale, Benjamin F. Butler was a more highly rated general than Lee since he lost fewer men than Lee during the war.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Speaking of Forrest being a bad subordinate, while I have the chance to ask - have you uncovered anything in your research of Forrest on the issue of how "And Bragg took his command out from under him." that is brought up as happening on multiple occasions when Forrest is discussed?

Because I'm kind of suspecting that while Bragg doubtlessly handled it with his usual tact, exactly what happened wasn't that specular.

He did raise a division that was transferred to someone else's command. I know of one instance, but I've never claimed to be an expert on Forrest if for no other reason than that he doesn't begin to interest me in the least.

 

[JPinta]

Christopher Hitchens once said that he welcomed personal attacks "because I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem."

[Forrest] was a really bad human being.

Perhaps there are some slightly stronger personal undercurrents in your vehement dismissal of Forrest, Eric W., rather than a mere objective evaluation of who is the most overrated general? (And trust me, I'm a Yank through and through just like you, a native son of the Land of Lincoln with a ggg grandfather who fought and bled for an Indiana regiment from the summer of 1862 until the war's close!) All are entitled to an opinion of course, and yours is obviously well-researched and I unabashedly respect it, but come on, don't stoop to the level of the lost causers who praise Forrest without admitting his faults by bashing him without admitting his many admirable attributes and successes. He was widely admired by soldiers and civilians both north and south at the time of the war, and I have this sense that if the dead could talk quite a few of the Federals you venerate might have a slight disagreement or two with the position you take with regard to Forrest being "not a real cavalryman in any possible sense of the word."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: While I will not tamper with the original post in an effort to preserve the continuity of the thread, I wholly admit to misquoting Eric Wittenberg in the above post. The "he" of his original post was a reference to Sheridan and not Forrest, and I misread and misunderstood. I should not have posted this without a more careful reading of the content which I quoted, and I apologize to all reading this for my horrendous oversight and error. You have my sincere assurances it will not happen again.

 

[Delhi Rangers]

Federal- John Pope

Confederate- William J Hardee

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Christopher Hitchens once said that he welcomed personal attacks "because I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem."

Sheridan's being a pathological liar is well documented. His hypocrisy is also well documented. My statement in calling him a horrible human being is based on fact.

And I really resent your putting words in my mouth that I never said for your own purposes. That's dishonest, insulting, and disingenuous. Do it again, you will find yourself on my blocked list. I trust that I have made myself abundantly clear.

Perhaps there are some slightly stronger personal undercurrents in your vehement dismissal of Forrest, Eric W., rather than a mere objective evaluation of who is the most overrated general? (And trust me, I'm a Yank through and through just like you, a native son of the Land of Lincoln with a ggg grandfather who fought and bled for an Indiana regiment from the summer of 1862 until the war's close!) All are entitled to an opinion of course, and yours is obviously well-researched and I unabashedly respect it, but come on, don't stoop to the level of the lost causers who praise Forrest without admitting his faults by bashing him without admitting his many admirable attributes and successes. He was widely admired by soldiers and civilians both north and south at the time of the war, and I have this sense that if the dead could talk quite a few of the Federals you venerate might have a slight disagreement or two with the position you take with regard to Forrest being "not a real cavalryman in any possible sense of the word."

You're entitled to your opinion. Mine is based on a lifetime of research and thought. Like it or not, you had better get used to it, because it ain't gonna change. This discussion is now over. I would probably feel otherwise had you not decided to twist my words for your own purposes. I will not discuss this with you any further because of that.

 

[Elennsar]

Elennsar I merely mean to say that a complete dismissal of Forrest (i.e. a ranking him as the most overrated of all-time) seems to directly contrast with the opinions of those alive during the war, both north and south, both civilian and military. I'm not saying Forrest was the greatest hero, general, southerner, etc. of the war, I'm not saying he was the bane of "General Overblown Emotional Statements" as you so eloquently called Cump, I'm not even saying he was necessarily anywhere near the top, but at the very bottom? Come on, there were people like AS Johnston and Phil Sheridan who fought in this same war! Have we forgotten that?

We're not listing "who was the worst general of the war". If Forrest's rating is more grossly exaggerated than Johnston's or Sheridan's (I don't think it is, but I'm not Eric, who can more than adequately back up why he thinks Forrest's reputation is more grossly exaggerated than Johnston's without my help), then whether or not he was a better general than them doesn't change that his rating is more inaccurate than theirs.

I mean, say you get 150 points out of a 100 on a test. And what you deserve is a 70.

The guy who got an 80 when his actual score should be a 20 is not being given more than he deserves as much as you.

That appears to be why Forrest is being named as "the most overrated" - that his reputation has swollen beyond his deeds (per Eric) even more than the reputation of Sidney Johnston or Sheridan has swollen beyond their lesser deeds.


And I'm afraid I'm going to have to join Eric in regards to the warning on warping words. Taking a quote specifically talking about Sheridan and inserting Forrest's name in there . . .

I don't even know what the point of that was. I'm sure Eric is not enthralled with Forrest as a human being, but that was just a lousy thing to do.

So if you do that again, I'm afraid you're going on my blocked list along with his. If you want to argue with Eric about Forrest's merits or lack thereof, I wish you the best of luck. If you want to rewrite what he has to say and then say "Perhaps there are some slightly stronger personal undercurrents in your vehement dismissal of Forrest, Eric W., rather than a mere objective evaluation of who is the most overrated general?" . . . well, if I was a meaner person I would treat that as something to tell the mods about.

It's not just insulting Eric. It's insulting to the idea of a civil and frank exchange of ideas.

 

[godofredus]

I am skipping most of the posts. I can see Gallagher's points. But by far the most overrated general is Robert E. Lee.
Why? Because he had the good fortune to fight on his home ground, and against a whole bunch of incompetents - and yes I include McClellan among those. So he looked read good. Once he was off his home ground, think Antietam and Gettysburg, he got whacked.

I could say more but won't.

 

[JPinta]

And I really resent your putting words in my mouth that I never said for your own purposes. That's dishonest, insulting, and disingenuous. Do it again, you will find yourself on my blocked list. I trust that I have made myself abundantly clear.

You're entitled to your opinion. Mine is based on a lifetime of research and thought. Like it or not, you had better get used to it, because it ain't gonna change. This discussion is now over. I would probably feel otherwise had you not decided to twist my words for your own purposes. I will not discuss this with you any further because of that.

Whoa, whoa I see that I struck quite a deep nerve in my last post. In all sincerity and honesty it was not my intention to "twist your words for my own purposes", I thought your words in your many previous posts were quite clear in fact.

In the spirit of keeping things amicable -- after all, we members of CWT are all here because of a deep commonality we share, which surely most override any differences of opinion on specific matters-- I do apologize for upsetting you to the level which I did and for "twisting your words." That was not my intention, and neither is it my intention now to make an enemy out of a fellow CWT member! I am sorry Eric W., I will consider the discussion over as well, and hope there is no lingering animosity between the two of us!

 

[Saruman]

1) So? Sidney didn't even deal with making sure the river forts (what turned out to be Donelson and Henry) were properly placed and fortified. Hell, Sidney didn't even deal with making sure Nashville was fortified. He just assumed it would get done. Having more territory to defend also came with control over - for example - the troops in East Tennessee.

2) No, Bragg just had to deal with the lovely group that engaged in borderline mutiny to destroy his authority over the AoT and disobey or ineffectively execute his orders at every turn. If you asked me whether I'd rather have Polk or Pillow as a subordinate, I'd take Pillow any day of the week.

Of course, I'd ask if suicide is an option instead of either, but that's not the point.

3) No thanks to his generalship, however. And not to last long after he died.

4) I certainly hope not. Even if Forrest hasn't earned much of a name for himself yet, dismissing reports like that is almost invariably a blunder.

1. The location of forts Henry and Donelson had already been decided before Johnston took command. Based on the advice of his engineering officers, it was deemed too late to build new forts in more desirable locations. Henry was indefensible because of the flooding factor. Johnston issued orders to his subordinates to have Henry, Donelson, and Nashville properly fortified but the incompetence of these subordinates and the apathy of the Southern people resulted in little action. As Departmental commander, Johnston had placed himself at the point of greatest danger (Bowling Green). He was dealing with much bigger issues such as Buell's huge army, recruitment, finding arms and ammunition, wrestling with ineptitude from Richmond, Judah Benjamin, and the state Governors etc. If his subordinates were incapable of performing their tasks they should have told him. It is not up to Johnston as Departmental commander to micro-manage every sub-district of his vast command. He had subordinates for a reason and they should have been more capable.

2. Polk and Pillow were both incompetent, scheming, and egotistical scoundrels. But Pillow was also a coward. He terminated the breakout attempt at Donelson because a bullet whizzed past his ear. In a later battle of the war he was found hiding behind a tree while his men charged the enemy. I'd take Polk over Pillow.

3. Yes, thanks entirely to his generalship. Beauregard wanted to cancel the attack. Shiloh only happened because of Johnston's determination to strike the enemy.

 

[JPinta]

And I really resent your putting words in my mouth that I never said for your own purposes. That's dishonest, insulting, and disingenuous. Do it again, you will find yourself on my blocked list. I trust that I have made myself abundantly clear.

And I'm afraid I'm going to have to join Eric in regards to the warning on warping words. Taking a quote specifically talking about Sheridan and inserting Forrest's name in there . . .

*Gulp* Wow, to you Eric Wittenberg, you Elennsar, and to all members reading this, you have my sincere apology.

I just went back and carefully reread his post and I genuinely thought he was referring to Forrest! I see abundantly clearly now that he was in fact referring to Sheridan. It was 110% my error, and as to not tarnish my name, please be aware that I would never knowingly twist the words of anyone in such a manner! I please beg your believing me on this issue, to anyone who has seen my posts on this forum in times past, I am not one to stoop to that level and this was a genuine error on my part for which I take all of the blame.

I openly take back my statement, and fully admit that Eric W. was not referring to Forrest when I accused him of doing so. I have made an edit at the end of my original post to make publicly known my folly. I am embarrassed beyond words and red-faced as I write this. My heartfelt apologies for such a painful and shameful oversight.

 

[Elennsar]

1. The location of forts Henry and Donelson had already been decided before Johnston took command. Based on the advice of his engineering officers, it was deemed too late to build new forts in more desirable locations. Henry was indefensible because of the flooding factor. Johnston issued orders to his subordinates to have Henry, Donelson, and Nashville properly fortified but the incompetence of these subordinates and the apathy of the Southern people resulted in little action.

And he did nothing productive to address this (underlined).

It is not his fault that - for example - Gilmer was a whiny little pest, but it is his fault that he did not keep track of what Gilmer was doing and whether or not it was actually what he instructed.

There's "not micromanaging" and then there's just complete failure to supervise at all.

2. Polk and Pillow were both incompetent, scheming, and egotistical scoundrels. But Pillow was also a coward. He terminated the breakout attempt at Donelson because a bullet whizzed past his ear. In a later battle of the war he was found hiding behind a tree while his men charged the enemy. I'd take Polk over Pillow.

Let's see, the guy who disobeys my orders on multiple occasions and actively attempts to sabotage my authority, or the physical coward.

Assuming that I really can't shoot both or myself - I still prefer the coward. It's a choice of evils, though.

3. Yes, thanks entirely to his generalship. Beauregard wanted to cancel the attack. Shiloh only happened because of Johnston's determination to strike the enemy.

But neither the plans or what overall direction existed for the battle were Johnston's, so his determination to strike counts for little more than the equivalent of a vote in favor at a council of war.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

*Gulp* Wow, to you Eric Wittenberg, you Elennsar, and to all members reading this, you have my sincere apology.

I just went back and carefully reread his post and I genuinely thought he was referring to Forrest! I see abundantly clearly now that he was in fact referring to Sheridan. It was 110% my error, and as to not tarnish my name, please be aware that I would never knowingly twist the words of anyone in such a manner! I please beg your believing me on this issue, to anyone who has seen my posts on this forum in times past, I am not one to stoop to that level and this was a genuine error on my part for which I take all of the blame.

I openly take back my statement, and fully admit that Eric W. was not referring to Forrest when I accused him of doing so. I have made an edit at the end of my original post to make publicly known my folly. I am embarrassed beyond words and red-faced as I write this. My heartfelt apologies for such a painful and shameful oversight.

Apology accepted. As Robert E. Lee said, "let us speak of this no more."

 

[JPinta]

Apology accepted. As Robert E. Lee said, "let us speak of this no more."

I greatly appreciate that Eric.