Forrest Jack Hurst's Book on NB Forrest

[Specster]

Just finished, was never a fan of NBF. The book was slow and IMO not well written but it was eye opening. I thought he was more of of a guerilla ala Bloody Bill. According to Hurst he was not. He usually followed the conventions of war and ran up an amazing record of victories and captures. His black flag policies were very difficult to comprehend and he never put Fort Pillow completely in the past. Soon after the war a friend offered to lend him money to go to Europe until Ft Pillow blew over. He declined saying he did nothing wrong and that he would face the consequences regardless. He was elected Grand Wizard of the KKK circa 1867-8. He claimed it was at that time akin to the Odd Fellows and Free Masons. He stated there were many chapters and that a few were practicing violent tactics. He abdicated the "Crown" (Hat?) shortly thereafter and claimed to have tried to shut down the Klan thereafter. BTW the KKK became violent after the Movie Birth of a Nation around 50 years later.
Hurst claimed Forrest worked his later years at trying to fight for the rights of black people everywhere. When NBF died hundreds of black people attended his funeral. May of his contemparies considered him the most accomplished fighter in the ACW. This in spite having a minimal education. He always had a thinly veiled contempt for his breathren who graduated from West Point. He fought so hard and for so long during the ACW that he wrecked his health and lost his fortune.

Ft Pillow was a huge blemish but it remains unproven that he did anything wrong personally.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I have not read the Jack Hurst book on Nathan Bedford Forrest.

However, I read the 'Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest' by John A. Wyeth (Hardcopy - 666 pages). This work is essentially a chronology of Forrest's activities during the Civil War. I found the content to be interesting and very readable. My only disappointment is that the book does not include an index.

The author portrays Forrest in a favorable light during the war. This includes a detailed analysis of his own personal conduct at Fort Pillow.

After reading the book, I found Forrest to be a strongly opinionated individual. Although he had no formal military education, he had a natural instinct for giving battle and was a highly successful cavalry commander in combat. He was also a survivor (judging by the multiple wounds he received and the number of times he narrowly escaped death). He operated a relatively independent cavalry command throughout the war. I can understand how some commentators may have described his swiftly moving cavalry tactics as guerrilla-like. I regard him, however, as an outstanding and effective regular cavalry officer in the Confederate Army. He was arguably the best regular cavalry leader in the Civil War.

 

[JerryD]

BTW the KKK became violent after the Movie Birth of a Nation around 50 years later.

This is a true statement, but it implies the first Klan was not violent, and it certainly was.

I recently read the Hurst book as well and enjoyed it. NBF was certainly an interesting, complex character.

 

[gjpratt]

Brian Steel Wills more recent biography is a good follow up/counterpoint to Hurst's.

 

[DixieRifles]

I have a copy of Hurst's book but have only looked or read thru parts of it. As I recall, his main resource is Jordan & Pryor's book, which was almost an autobiography. So when I want to read about Forrest, I go first to Jordan & Pryor.

 

[Louisiana Jayhawker]

I have my copy of Hurst's book and value it as a good resource, but it has flaws like most. The best study of Fort Pillow issue is ANDREW WARD book RIVER RUN RED.

 

[Specster]

This is a true statement, but it implies the first Klan was not violent, and it certainly was.

I recently read the Hurst book as well and enjoyed it. NBF was certainly an interesting, complex character.

Some kkk were violent in 1868 but not all

 

[carptrash]

This 1869 (?) cartoon certainly hints that the Klan was involved in some early violence.

 

[JerryD]

Some kkk were violent in 1868 but not all

I think that is generally true of all iterations of the klan, though. But the first klan was extremely violent, especially with respect to political violence and keeping blacks away from the polls.

 

[Specster]

I have not read the Jack Hurst book on Nathan Bedford Forrest.

However, I read the 'Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest' by John A. Wyeth (Hardcopy - 666 pages). This work is essentially a chronology of Forrest's activities during the Civil War. I found the content to be interesting and very readable. My only disappointment is that the book does not include an index.

The author portrays Forrest in a favorable light during the war. This includes a detailed analysis of his own personal conduct at Fort Pillow.

After reading the book, I found Forrest to be a strongly opinionated individual. Although he had no formal military education, he had a natural instinct for giving battle and was a highly successful cavalry commander in combat. He was also a survivor (judging by the multiple wounds he received and the number of times he narrowly escaped death). He operated a relatively independent cavalry command throughout the war. I can understand how some commentators may have described his swiftly moving cavalry tactics as guerrilla-like. I regard him, however, as an outstanding and effective regular cavalry officer in the Confederate Army. He was arguably the best regular cavalry leader in the Civil War.

Johnston and Sherman held him in very high regard. He was volatile as many men of his ilk were. Attacking without self regard…that is rare He reminds me of Phil Kearney somewhat in being hyper aggresive and impetus

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Johnston and Sherman held him in very high regard. He was volatile as many men of his ilk were. Attacking without self regard…that is rare He reminds me of Phil Kearney somewhat in being hyper aggresive and impetus

Unfortunately, the Confederacy recognized his talents and skills too late by not giving him a higher command of a larger force earlier in the war.

Forrest had better survival skills (and luck) than Kearny.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

BTW the KKK became violent after the Movie Birth of a Nation around 50 years later.

The first Klan was pretty violent in Reconstruction, attacking freedmen and perceived carpetbaggers. It was also probably the only Klan that was truly suppressed.

The second Klan, the revival after Birth of a Nation, was the most mainstream Klan and the most nationwide. It was also the least focused on oppressing African Americans, although it had that too. It fizzled during the Depression.

The third Klan was the violent anti-Civil Rights group.

He fought so hard and for so long during the ACW that he wrecked his health and lost his fortune.

NBF built his fortune on slave trading, didn't he? So he didn't have much chance of making it out of the war with his fortune or career intact.

I regard him, however, as an outstanding and effective regular cavalry officer in the Confederate Army. He was arguably the best regular cavalry leader in the Civil War.

NBF was "regular" in the sense that he was not a guerilla, but calling him a "regular cavalry officer" isn't really accurate either. "Mounted infantry raiders" is probably a more accurate description of Forrest's force.

He was a great fighter, leader, and bluffer but he he chaffed at anything other than independent command and wasn't good at regular cavalry roles like scouting or screening.

The Confederate western theater suffered repeatedly because most of their cavalry generals could fight and raid, but couldn't work as part of a team to win campaigns and army battles. Forrest, Morgan, and Wheeler in particular; probably Van Dorn too. Compare them to Stuart and Hampton in the east.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

The first Klan was pretty violent in Reconstruction, attacking freedmen and perceived carpetbaggers. It was also probably the only Klan that was truly suppressed.

The second Klan, the revival after Birth of a Nation, was the most mainstream Klan and the most nationwide. It was also the least focused on oppressing African Americans, although it had that too. It fizzled during the Depression.

The third Klan was the violent anti-Civil Rights group.



NBF built his fortune on slave trading, didn't he? So he didn't have much chance of making it out of the war with his fortune or career intact.



NBF was "regular" in the sense that he was not a guerilla, but calling him a "regular cavalry officer" isn't really accurate either. "Mounted infantry raiders" is probably a more accurate description of Forrest's force.

He was a great fighter, leader, and bluffer but he he chaffed at anything other than independent command and wasn't good at regular cavalry roles like scouting or screening.

The Confederate western theater suffered repeatedly because most of their cavalry generals could fight and raid, but couldn't work as part of a team to win campaigns and army battles. Forrest, Morgan, and Wheeler in particular; probably Van Dorn too. Compare them to Stuart and Hampton in the east.

Forrest enlisted in the Confederate Army, and was later commissioned as an officer commanding cavalry in that Army. His first commission was L-C of a Regiment; next, he was promoted to B-G of a Brigade; and finally ended up as M-G of a Cavalry Corps.

His led cavalry units (whether Regiments, Brigades or Corps) were sometimes attached to, and fought with, the main Army in engagements (eg Fort Donelson, Chickamauga, Franklin, Nashville). At other times, his cavalry unit fought with the main Army as an unattached unit, like at Shiloh. Often his cavalry unit was detached by the main Army commander to conduct largely independent operations or raids, such as in northern Alabama, western Georgia or west Tennessee.

I regard Forrest as a regular Army officer, who frequently conducted authorized unconventional (not guerrilla) cavalry operations when detached from the main force on specialized assignments. He was generally under the orders of Army command and his units often formed part of the organizational structure (and were included in the planning) of the main Army body. His cavalry was essentially an Army-controlled rapid moving strike force, that covered vast areas. His cavalry did not normally perform the conventional cavalry operations of scouting and screening, like Wheeler did, although at times it did perform rearguard actions to protect the main Army body.

Unfortunately, Forrest's promotion to higher command of a large enough force came too late in the war to make any real difference.

 

[Florida Rebel]

I especially appreciate and like the reference to Jeb Stuart and Wade Hampton by Joshism. Being a productive member of a "team" is what Forrest might have been, instead of an independent leader/fighter who had problems getting along with others. Wasn't Forrest more like Mosby in that regard but larger? Still, I won't smear the man because he clearly knew how to fight and fight well. However, I still believe Jeb Stuart was the best cavalry leader of the war on either side!

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Wasn't Forrest more like Mosby in that regard but larger?

Mosby was a partisan ranger. More a guerilla than traditional cavalry, but better organized and officially sanctioned (and presumably uniformed). Officially, Mosby's unit was a cavalry battalion, which further shows how broadly the term "cavalry" was applied during the war.

I think the only time a mounted unit was officially designated Mounted Infantry was if they originally formed as Infantry, but mounted later and remained armed with rifles (ex: Wilder's Lightning Brigade). Otherwise, mounted troops on both sides were all designated cavalry, regardless of how they were equipped or used. Even permanently dismounted cavalry (mostly Confederates in the Trans-Mississippi) remained designated "Cavalry Regiment (Dismounted)".

NBF was supposed to act in traditional cavalry roles during the Tullahoma and Chickamauga campaigns. That didn't work out so well. There have been past CWT threads about this issue, including comments from resident cavalry expert (and author) Eric Wittenberg.

 

[Specster]

I have not read the Jack Hurst book on Nathan Bedford Forrest.

However, I read the 'Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest' by John A. Wyeth (Hardcopy - 666 pages). This work is essentially a chronology of Forrest's activities during the Civil War. I found the content to be interesting and very readable. My only disappointment is that the book does not include an index.

The author portrays Forrest in a favorable light during the war. This includes a detailed analysis of his own personal conduct at Fort Pillow.

After reading the book, I found Forrest to be a strongly opinionated individual. Although he had no formal military education, he had a natural instinct for giving battle and was a highly successful cavalry commander in combat. He was also a survivor (judging by the multiple wounds he received and the number of times he narrowly escaped death). He operated a relatively independent cavalry command throughout the war. I can understand how some commentators may have described his swiftly moving cavalry tactics as guerrilla-like. I regard him, however, as an outstanding and effective regular cavalry officer in the Confederate Army. He was arguably the best regular cavalry leader in the Civil War.

Hurst comes to pretty much the same conclusions

 

[Specster]

I think that is generally true of all iterations of the klan, though. But the first klan was extremely violent, especially with respect to political violence and keeping blacks away from the polls.

That is not what Hurst said. He said the real violence started after the film "Birth of a Nation".....early 1900s

 

[Belfoured]

That is not what Hurst said. He said the real violence started after the film "Birth of a Nation".....early 1900s

The acts of the first Klan were the impetus for the Civil Rights Act of 1871, including the "night rider" provisions that became 42 U.S.C., sec. 1985. That was based on the significant violence inflicted by the Klan. The iteration of the Klan that was the "least" violent (everything is relative) was the 1920's version that by the mid-'20's had large membership around the country and was focused more on racial/ethnic/religious bigotry - while, of course, still indulging in the occasional lynching.

 

[JerryD]

That is not what Hurst said. He said the real violence started after the film "Birth of a Nation".....early 1900s

I guess it depends on what he means by "real violence", but the first iteration of the klan killed hundreds. I think that is "real violence".

 

[Nathan Stuart]

NBF was "regular" in the sense that he was not a guerilla, but calling him a "regular cavalry officer" isn't really accurate either. "Mounted infantry raiders" is probably a more accurate description of Forrest's force.

Agree. Forrest was not a guerilla and can understand why some might not view him as a 'regular cavalry officer' in the strictest or perhaps conventional sense.

Would argue that Forrest could be considered as a 'regular cavalry officer' serving in the CSA Army because his commands frequently formed part of Army organizational structures (and served under their high commands) in major engagements fought during the war.

Forrest (without any formal military training) was commissioned a Lieutenant-Colonel in the CSA Army in October, 1861. In mid-1862, he was promoted to Brigadier-General under Bragg's command. Following a dispute with Bragg (after Chickamauga), he was assigned an independent command in Mississippi and promoted to the rank of Major-General at the end of 1863. He subsequently served under Hood in late 1864 and later was further promoted to Lieutenant-General in February, 1865.

He led cavalry units that fought with Confederate Armies at major engagements like Fort Donelson and Shiloh. He also commanded the Cavalry Corps of the Army of Tennessee at Chickamauga (under Bragg), and then again at Franklin and Nashville (under Hood).

For periods throughout the war, he operated semi-independently in conducting highly mobilized operations (like many other regular cavalry commanders on both sides did).

The wartime cavalry service of Forrest can be compared and contrasted to that of John Hunt Morgan, an irregular cavalry officer, whose independent cavalry force did operate largely autonomously and remain unattached to any Army command structure.