Absent Commanders

[Elennsar]

There were greater things in play than a general. If Lincoln could get 20,000 soldiers by promoting a nebbish, he was going to do it. We sometimes loose our ideals in the exigencies of necessary.

The problem with McClellan is that the evidence does not support that he would be better than the alternative/s.

A Butler - as terrible as he was - had assets as long as he was kept away from "ladies" and battlefields. McClellan was expected to be a field commander, that was his purpose. He failed at that purpose.

 

[larry_cockerham]

You mentioned him.

I guess the question is, who do we hold as an example of the ideal?

I mean, its one thing to say that a general should be "neither too far nor too close", but that's not saying much without an example.

Look before your eyes. N.B.F. from Tennessee.

 

[Elennsar]

Larry, please understand this is not meant as an attack on you or on Forrest.

But I'm seriously tired of how Forrest is held up as an example of the very model of a 19th century lieutenant general.

There's a line between respect and hero worship, and I'm hoping its just my mixed feelings on the former making me think you have a case of the latter.

That being said, we know Forrest could lead from the front (this has been established past all possible doubt, short of assuming complete and total dishonesty by the sources drawn upon to write about him). Could Forrest lead from the rear in situations where being brave and inspiring was less relevant and keeping things (not within the sight range of a commander) under control was more so?

My knowledge of his record does not indicate he was generally in situations that sitting back and planning (in battle) was a relevant skill. This is not a criticism - just that he was in a different situation than trying to manage something like the battle of Winchester (any of them).

 

[larry_cockerham]

Larry, please understand this is not meant as an attack on you or on Forrest.

But I'm seriously tired of how Forrest is held up as an example of the very model of a 19th century lieutenant general.

There's a line between respect and hero worship, and I'm hoping its just my mixed feelings on the former making me think you have a case of the latter.

That being said, we know Forrest could lead from the front (this has been established past all possible doubt, short of assuming complete and total dishonesty by the sources drawn upon to write about him). Could Forrest lead from the rear in situations where being brave and inspiring was less relevant and keeping things (not within the sight range of a commander) under control was more so?

My knowledge of his record does not indicate he was generally in situations that sitting back and planning (in battle) was a relevant skill. This is not a criticism - just that he was in a different situation than trying to manage something like the battle of Winchester (any of them).

No offense taken at all. Your response merely suggests you have need for further study on Forrest. I'm not pulling him out of thin air, only referring to the facts. From the Confederate side, few commanding generals spent the time planning in great detail the pending engagement to equal Forrest. Yes, many of his responses were on site, conditioned responses after he got the field experience, but he was also quite worthy of consideration for his ability to analyze his opponents movements, track them with a well-organized scout force, led by his brother William Hezekiah many times, and pre-arrange the sequence of events that he anticipated would occur. He assisted with placement of artillery in most cases, hence his long association with J.W. Morton, whose book you really must read, and would place and arrange the movements, often with intricate and crucial timing of movements anticipated, of his mounted and ground forces. Often times both the same. Aside from possibly Lee and Jackson, Forrest had no equal in this regard on the Confederate side. Maybe Grant, Sherman, Meade and a couple other Union officers, but the class was small. Check out Brices Crossroads, Franklin, Sugar Creek, Chickamauga, the raid on Murfreesboro in 1863, New Johnsonville 1864, and his work at Fort Donelson. A planner? yes.

To my knowledge there were no models of Lt. Generals until folks started writing about Forrest?

 

[Elennsar]

No offense taken at all. Your response merely suggests you have need for further study on Forrest.
...
To my knowledge there were no models of Lt. Generals until folks started writing about Forrest?

This is exactly what I am tired of hearing about Forrest from you. Its not good enough that Forrest was a good officer in some ways. No, one has to believe that he was without peers and without superiors and that anyone who disagreed with him (like say, Bragg) just didn't appreciate his talents.

This is not serious history we're talking about. This is to serious history of Forrest as a military leader as Freeman's hagiography of Robert E. Lee is to serious history.

This would have been a REALLY good time to remain silent.

 

[ole]

Both excellent points. (EDIT: With the exception of post #45.)

The tragedy of NBF is that no one thought to turn his skills into infantry maneuvers. Had he been earlier forced to take command of a brigade, and in turn, a division, the Confederacy might well have made him into a Lt. General with real usefulness.

Instead, he was allowed to continue doing what he was really good at doing with little significant result.

Before Larry blows a circuit breaker (if he still has a functioning one), I ought to clarify.

Forrest was good at taking garrisons and guard posts and borrowing supplies and equipment. He was so good at that that no one in the theater made a move without knowing where Forrest was.

I can't help but believe that his obvious skill could have been used better as a commander of a division or corps. Maybe even the AoT.

But no one was going to give major command to a man who did not graduate West Point and was so "coarse." So he was relegated into comparatively minor functions which were superbly accomplished. But no one noticed (with the exception of that noted above).

Just a thought.

Ole

 

[Elennsar]

With all possible respect, Ole, there is reason to think that Forrest was not some kind of legendary general who was only overlooked because he had bad manners and didn't come from West Point.

I really don't want to say there's something wrong with praising Forrest, because he did do praiseworthy stuff.

But Forrest's great operations are as an independent detached guy, not as someone working as part of a team.

Is that a flaw? No, but its not a strength, either.

Some people disagree. And I'm fine with that - though I'm sure my last post isn't showing that very well.

To quote Eric Wittenburg (posting on another site, his post italicized):

My opinion of Forrest actually had little to do with Brian's book. My opinion is based on years of study. I have written fourteen books on Civil War cavalry operations, and have had a lot of chances to evaluate and study the good, the bad, and the ugly. I have little regard for Forrest for a lot of reasons, some of which you touched on in your response to Slug. There's no disputing his personal courage or his success against the second-rate commanders he faced. However, in an army, the entire structure depends on subordinate officers obeying the lawful orders of their superiors, and without that, chaos rules. An insubordinate junior officer, no matter how talented, is useless if he cannot be relied upon to obey orders, and that's what Forrest was (so, too, was Phil Sheridan, but that's another rant for another day). Unless Forrest was in independent command, he was pretty much completely useless due to his insubordination.


I haven't personally studied either cavalry or Forrest in particular for years, but Wittenburg has. Saying that those who don't think Forrest was one of the very best are people who haven't read enough on him might make some sense if it was just people like me (who haven't read much specifically on Forrest), but its insulting (I'm virtually positive unintentionally) to those who have.

And as such, its not very respectful to those who base their view on their research, either.

Again, I could not be more certain that Larry did not mean it that way, but I genuinely feel that its at best a little irritating to deal with the attitude that only the ignorant don't rate Forrest highly.

 

[ole]

Irritation is quite common. Most folks let it slide.

Ole

 

[Elennsar]

I would be willing to let it slide if it wasn't for the fact that the irritation is over Larry basically saying "If you don't agree with me you're just ignorant."

I can't think of many people who I would find more surprising to be intentionally insulting someone than Larry insulting someone. But its really hard to take this as respectful disagreement.

 

[ole]

One more time. Let it slide.

Ole

 

[K Hale]

I wanted to nominate Stuart, but do the nominees have to avoid being shot while leading from the front?

 

[Elennsar]

Probably not.

As I understand it - a certain amount of personal risk is assumed to be inevitable. Or at least appropriate.

Taking unnecessary chances to show one's bravery and , but if leading from the front is appropriate, that you happened to be one of 77 (Confederate) generals killed in action or mortally wounded doesn't seem to be a bad mark.

From what little I know, Stuart was not in an overly dangerous place when the bullet made for him made contact.

Long story short: Sure, let's count Stuart.

I would nominate Hancock, but I don't know enough of where he was in general to be able to make that a nomination of any weight.

 

[bama46]

I would be willing to let it slide if it wasn't for the fact that the irritation is over Larry basically saying "If you don't agree with me you're just ignorant."

I can't think of many people who I would find more surprising to be intentionally insulting someone than Larry insulting someone. But its really hard to take this as respectful disagreement.

Then be irritated at me... I stand with Larry.


Ed

 

[The Iron Duke]

And then you have someone like Oliver O. Howard, or, as some call him, "Oh-oh!" Howard. By all accounts a fine human being, an intelligent man, and unquestionably courageous. And yet, an inept and utterly uninspiring leader. I don't know how he kept getting sent up the chain of command to the point where he ended the war leading an army. There must be more to Howard than meets the eye -- anyone know what was up?

Howard was actually pretty solid and reliable during the Atlanta and Carolinas campaigns. Unfortunately history has tended to only remember Howard's failures, like Hooker, while ignoring his successes.

 

[Elennsar]

Not to sound disrespectful of either you or Howard, but what did Howard do in the Atlanta or Carolinas campaigns requiring sound military judgement?

 

[larry_cockerham]

.[/I]


I haven't personally studied either cavalry or Forrest in particular for years, but Wittenburg has. Saying that those who don't think Forrest was one of the very best are people who haven't read enough on him might make some sense if it was just people like me (who haven't read much specifically on Forrest), but its insulting (I'm virtually positive unintentionally) to those who have.

And as such, its not very respectful to those who base their view on their research, either.

Again, I could not be more certain that Larry did not mean it that way, but I genuinely feel that its at best a little irritating to deal with the attitude that only the ignorant don't rate Forrest highly.

I rest my case.

Forrest, who did the things that stand out in his service as a Major general, not a lieutenant, fits into the system quite well. There is MUCH documentation showing him following orders from higher command repeatedly. Some folks have a hatred for this man. I have theories, but really don't understand why. Come to think of it, that is something I'm used to. To stand by and not see him recognized for the facts, or to let the derisions go by without at least offering an alternate (fact based) opinion, goes against my genes. I do not wish to offend. I merely think the truth should be told regarding a fine soldier. I can praise Sherman just as easily, and have on occasion. Aside from a few thousand mis-informed Confederate descendants, ain't nobody trashing him at the moment. You won't find me in that group.

 

[The Iron Duke]

Not to sound disrespectful of either you or Howard, but what did Howard do in the Atlanta or Carolinas campaigns requiring sound military judgement?

Howard as IV corps commander:

• His men fought very well alongside Hooker's men during both days of Resaca.
• Pickett's Mill was probably his worst performance of the campaign but Hooker performed just as bad a couple days previously at New Hope Church.
• At Kennesaw Mountain, Howard's men did no worse than either Palmer's or Logan's men.
• His men performed well at Peachtree Creek.

Howard as Army of the Tennessee commander:

• He wins a great defensive victory at Ezra Church. This was probably the most lopsided victory of the entire Atlanta Campaign.
• He again wins a defensive victory at Jonesboro.
• During the March to the Sea, he commands the right hand column. It is his men who capture Fort McCallister.
• During the march through the Carolinas he again commands the right wing.
• His men perform well at Bentonville and Mower comes awfully close to giving Johnston the coup de grace.

 

[Leah's Choice]

Not to sound disrespectful of either you or Howard, but what did Howard do in the Atlanta or Carolinas campaigns requiring sound military judgement?

"Instead Sherman gave the command to Oliver Howard, until this point the commander of the Fourth Corps in the Army of the Cumberland. Born in Maine in 1830, Howard had graduated from Bowdoin College in 1850 before entering West Point, where he finished fourth in the class of 1854. He served in the Eastern theater of the war until late summer of 1863, losing his right arm at Fair Oaks and rising to corps command. In his first two battles as corps commander, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, his superiors' misjudgments and the tides of battle had handed him impossible situations, leading to disasters that Howard could do little to prevent. Still, he had received a congressional vote of thanks for his selection of the winning position at Gettysburg, and his continued promotion to responsible positions, without any powerful political patrons, indicated that the War Department, at least, recognized him as an officer of merit. Howard was brave, conscientious, aggressive, and solidly competent.

Nothing But Victory
Stephen Woodworth

If you all want to hash over the events of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, here's your chance. I know little about either battle. I'm just reporting Woodworth's view on Howard.

Having recently read about Sherman's march, it occurs to me that there was little to do other than march, forage for food, burn some buildings that were considered of value to the Confederate armies, rebuild some bridges and chase away Confederate cavalry that had almost no chance of stopping Sherman's army. However.....

In Sherman's "March to the Sea," from Atlanta to Savannah, Major-General Howard led the right wing, marching down the Macon road, destroying the railroad and scattering the rebel cavalry - and passing through Jackson, Monticello, and Hillsboro, to Milledgeville, the capital of the State, where he was joined by the left wing of the army, under General Slocum. From Millen the united army moved down on either bank of the Ogeechee river, and Howard's column, by the 8th of
December, had reached and seized the Gulf rainroad, within twenty miles of Savannah. On the night of the 9th Howard communicated, by scouts, with a Union gunboat lying two miles below Fort McAllister - which shortly fell into the hands of the Union troops - and Generals Sherman and Howard went down to the fleet in a small boat, where they met Admiral Dahlgren. Their great work was done and Savannah was a splendid Christmas gift to the President and to the nation.

Early in February commenced the march through the Carolinas, in which Howard again led the right wing, moving towards Beaufort, and menacing Charleston—and finally entering Columbia, the capital of the Palmetto State. Then pressing into North Carolina, they met and whipped Johnston's rebel army at Averysboro, on the 20th of March, 1865 ; and while on the march for Raleigh, on the 12th of April, were delighted by the glad news of Lee's surrender.

From "Men of our Day
Ziegler & McCurdy - 1872

Sherman's march didn't involve any major battles once Hood was disposed of, and while Howard's part in the march may not have garnered any great accolades from history, he obeyed orders and acquitted himself well, as far as I can tell.

Something rather amusing: General Howard lost his right arm at the battle of Fair Oaks. "General Kearny, who had lost his left arm, visited Howard and joked that they could shop together for gloves." (That comes from Wikipedia)

 

[Glorybound]

Ok, well pardon me if this is the wrong thread, but somewhere I just read where someone asked if Burnside issued an evacuation order to residents of Fredericksburg. I did a post then came back to the question and now I can't find it. I think the question came from Ms. Hale. ...I could be wrong.

Anyway, I don't recall reading that he did ever issue such an order because I don't think it was ever necessary. All the reading I've done on Fredericksburg (Dec 13, 1862) was that the Federals occupied the bank across the river (Rappahannock) for a very long time due to the non-arrival of the blessed pontoons that were supposed to spearhead a surprise attack. By the time the warehoused paperwork snafu-ed pontoons got to Burnside there was no surprise. During the delay Lee got wind of the AOP's presence on the heights across the river and rushed his ANV to F'burg. When the ANV occupied the town, the heights (Marye's) behind it, and took positions north and south of the town the citizens declined to wait for any evacuation order and booked on their own accord.

Now I could be mistaken so please correct me if I am. Thanks.



Lee

 

[The Iron Duke]

while Howard's part in the march may not have garnered any great accolades from history, he obeyed orders and acquitted himself well, as far as I can tell.

Exactly. For the most part, whatever goal Sherman assigned him, Howard accomplished. Unfortunately what Howard did before Chancellorsville and Gettysburg and what he did after receives little comment.