Forrest Was Forrest a Bad Commander?

[JerryD]

David, all great points which make me look forward even more to your book (arriving tomorrow per Amazon).

Let me ask your opinion on something. I've had the sense for a long time that authors of the late Victorian period were by and large more "honest" than is the case since, say, 1965. There remained among historians and authors a sense of honor, and of accountability to a deity, which served to limit more aggressive propaganda and dishonesty. Any biases were fairly obvious -- eg, Sir John Fortescue's account of Waterloo in his "History of the British Army" contains any number of jabs toward Gneisnau of Bluecher's staff, who had himself throughout the campaign said any number of unpleasant things about Wellington and the British. But he is scrupulously fair and even gracious toward the French; the same can be said of many French sources (eg, Houssaye on the campaigns of 1814 and 1815). There's a magnanimity and a decency that seems absent in the current milieu. One thinks of captured generals sitting down for dinner with their opposite numbers after a battle. (And, needless to say, the authors of that era were certainly not seeking to advance a given set of ideological propositions ie, expanded federal power in the interest of racial egalitarianism. Under such propositions, it's certainly no wonder that Forrest is held up as the demon incarnate, a racist bumpkin, a murderous cracker whose exploits was constantly exaggerated, and who was in reality more or less a zero.)

Am I completely wrong?

Yes. The participants, north and south, certainly had agendas then. A strong argument can be made that every autobiography or every first person account needs to be taken with a grain of salt and you need to look at the person's unspoken agenda to determine how much you can trust their accounts.

 

[Belfoured]

David, thanks very much. I completely agree on the superiority of older sources, which is why I am suspicious of "contemporary re-valuations," by anyone.

thanks again and kind regards.

I completely agree on the superiority of older sources, which is why I am suspicious of "contemporary re-valuations," by anyone.

Really? I suggest being more open about this. A lot of "older" books are based on limited information available at the time. Much more in the way of primary sources is accessible today, just for example. A book - regardless of when it was written - should be looked at objectively and not by presuming that because it's "older" it's either "better" or "more accurate". The same goes for a book that is "contemporary". I'll note that using your standard tosses out some of the books that have been recommended to you. It might be that they should be tossed for legitimate reasons but not because of when they were written.

 

[breckod]

Really? I suggest being more open about this. A lot of "older" books are based on limited information available at the time. Much more in the way of primary sources is accessible today, just for example. A book - regardless of when it was written - should be looked at objectively and not by presuming that because it's "older" it's either "better" or "more accurate". The same goes for a book that is "contemporary". I'll note that using your standard tosses out some of the books that have been recommended to you. It might be that they should be tossed for legitimate reasons but not because of when they were written.

People just really want an excuse to not look at anything that wasn't dependent on the Southern Historical Society Papers.

 

[David Moore]

Really? I suggest being more open about this. A lot of "older" books are based on limited information available at the time. Much more in the way of primary sources is accessible today, just for example. A book - regardless of when it was written - should be looked at objectively and not by presuming that because it's "older" it's either "better" or "more accurate". The same goes for a book that is "contemporary". I'll note that using your standard tosses out some of the books that have been recommended to you. It might be that they should be tossed for legitimate reasons but not because of when they were written.

Of course the really valuable older sources are in manuscript collections where people wrote things that they never put out publicly. My Garfield quote about the role of political leaders in Rosecrans' removal is an example. Manuscripts are rarely available online.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

People just really want an excuse to not look at anything that wasn't dependent on the Southern Historical Society Papers.

You've made a few valid points ... until that post.

I would love to hear you give a more detailed analysis of the Southern Historical Society Papers.

It seems there are more than enough different agendas circulating these days.

 

[19thGeorgia]

That comment makes Sherman sound a bit nervous about Forrest.

In May 1864, Sherman had 80,000 troops protecting his supply lines. The only significant threat was Forrest's cavalry (<10,000). Sherman must have been very nervous.

 

[breckod]

You've made a few valid points ... until that post.

I would love to hear you give a more detailed analysis of the Southern Historical Society Papers.

It seems there are more than enough different agendas circulating these days.

Any student of the war should be aware of the Southern Historical Society Papers. I really can't tell from this whether you don't know what they even are and are just doing a partisan reaction because "Southern" is in the name, or if you're genuinely offended by the idea that Jubal Early's work might be less than entirely reliable, something that shouldn't be controversial to anyone with basic knowledge of the historiography. Either way, you're not engaging in good faith. We're done.

 

[David Moore]

People just really want an excuse to not look at anything that wasn't dependent on the Southern Historical Society

Any student of the war should be aware of the Southern Historical Society Papers. I really can't tell from this whether you don't know what they even are and are just doing a partisan reaction because "Southern" is in the name, or if you're genuinely offended by the idea that Jubal Early's work might be less than entirely reliable, something that shouldn't be controversial to anyone with basic knowledge of the historiography. Either way, you're not engaging in good faith. We're done.

Like Sherman's and Grant's work may be less than entirely reliable? That of course is a point made by Albert Castel and Frank Varney.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

So I came across this article which proclaims Forrest to have been the worst general of the war. Reading it, it just seems like a hitpiece on Forrest rather than actual history, though I thought I'd share it anyways for discussion.

To begin, thought the bold headline in the attached article was a deliberate exaggeration designed to catch the reader's attention. In considering the subheading, 'Nathan Bedford Forrest was pretty bad at his job', one must recall what his job was, then determine whether he was 'competent' or 'incompetent' in performing this role.

Whether he was considered famous or infamous for his fighting deeds, thought Forrest was relatively more effective in attracting the focus of attention for his personal exploits, rather than as being effective for his limited tactical successes leading relatively small units of mounted troops.

Thought Bragg hit the nail on the head when he reportedly said of Forrest, …'He is nothing more than a good raider'…

Thought Forrest's own personal disposition rendered him unable (and unsuited) to co-operating and coordinating within overall Army command structures. He was, inter alia, hot-headed, strongly opinionated and domineering. Despite any inter-personal shortcomings, though, believe (after reviewing his field performances) that Forrest was a competent enough commander of independent mounted units where he was given a license to freely operate over extensive areas, like the western theater. In other words, he was in his element conducting this type of unconventional autonomous mounted warfare. But it was Forrest's lack of discipline and organization skills, including his inability to manage subordinates, that reduced the rating of his command performances to being satisfactorily competent without being exceptionally outstanding. If one accepts his leadership performances in such roles as competent, without necessarily being superlative, then he is not deserving of any of the negative tags suggested in the article. (He was neither a good nor a bad commander of these types of units, but he was competent).

Don't think any of his field actions had a material enough effect to change the course of campaigns during the war.

Interestingly, Joe Johnston in the postwar period said that if Forrest had learned the value of discipline and organization through proper systematic military training, he would have 'been the great central soldier of the war'. But even in this reference, interpreted 'central' to mean as the 'great center of attention', not as the 'great effective commander', of the war.

To sum up. Thought Forrest was a competent commander of independent mounted raiders who did not change the course of the war. Because of his own personality failings (and personal acts), for which he is better remembered more than for his leadership in small-scale field successes, he was incapable of achieving greatness as an Army cavalry commander.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe Forrest as one of the most conspicuous, rather than effective, military leaders of the Civil War.

 

[JerryD]

Like Sherman's and Grant's work may be less than entirely reliable? That of course is a point made by Albert Castel and Frank Varney.

I think its a given that every autobiographical work needs to be read with a grain of salt, but are you denying that the Lost Cause movement existed and was centered around the Southern Historical Society?

 

[JerryD]

To begin, thought the bold headline in the attached article was a deliberate exaggeration designed to catch the reader's attention. In considering the subheading, 'Nathan Bedford Forrest was pretty bad at his job', one must recall what his job was, then determine whether he was 'competent' or 'incompetent' in performing this role.

Whether he was considered famous or infamous for his fighting deeds, thought Forrest was relatively more effective in attracting the focus of attention for his personal exploits, rather than as being effective for his limited tactical successes leading relatively small units of mounted troops.

Thought Bragg hit the nail on the head when he reportedly said of Forrest, …'He is nothing more than a good raider'…

Thought Forrest's own personal disposition rendered him unable (and unsuited) to co-operating and coordinating within overall Army command structures. He was, inter alia, hot-headed, strongly opinionated and domineering. Despite any inter-personal shortcomings, though, believe (after reviewing his field performances) that Forrest was a competent enough commander of independent mounted units where he was given a license to freely operate over extensive areas, like the western theater. In other words, he was in his element conducting this type of unconventional autonomous mounted warfare. But it was Forrest's lack of discipline and organization skills, including his inability to manage subordinates, that reduced the rating of his command performances to being satisfactorily competent without being exceptionally outstanding. If one accepts his leadership performances in such roles as competent, without necessarily being superlative, then he is not deserving of any of the negative tags suggested in the article. (He was neither a good nor a bad commander of these types of units, but he was competent).

Don't think any of his field actions had a material enough effect to change the course of campaigns during the war.

Interestingly, Joe Johnston in the postwar period said that if Forrest had learned the value of discipline and organization through proper systematic military training, he would have 'been the great central soldier of the war'. But even in this reference, interpreted 'central' to mean as the 'great center of attention', not as the 'great effective commander', of the war.

To sum up. Thought Forrest was a competent commander of independent mounted raiders who did not change the course of the war. Because of his own personality failings (and personal acts), for which he is better remembered more than for his leadership in small-scale field successes, he was incapable of achieving greatness as an Army cavalry commander.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe Forrest as one of the most conspicuous, rather than effective, military leaders of the Civil War.

Mostly agree with this synopsis, but think you are not giving him enough credit for what he did do. Afterall, he was promoted to Lieutenant General. Someone must have thought he was doing something right. But your basic premise is correct. He was a minor commander who did not have any real impact on the course of the war. He was a very good raider, but that is about it. A major irritation, for sure, but nothing more.

 

[David Moore]

I think its a given that every autobiographical work needs to be read with a grain of salt, but are you denying that the Lost Cause movement existed and was centered around the Southern Historical Society?

No but the Lost Cause is hardly ascendant today whereas Grant's and Sherman's memoirs are still cited by academic and prize winning historians. Btw Albert Castel's essay on Sherman's memoirs is entitled "Prevaricating through Georgia."

 

[JerryD]

No but the Lost Cause is hardly ascendant today whereas Grant's and Sherman's memoirs are still cited by academic and prize winning historians. Btw Albert Castel's essay on Sherman's memoirs is entitled "Prevaricating through Georgia."

Of course they are, as are Southern History Society writings. Maybe you dont know this, but when you read a source you need to do so with a critical eye and assess what is reliable, and what is questionable. Nearly everything written by the Southern Historical Society has some worth as first person accounts. But they need to be taken with a grain of salt.

You seem to be alleging that since Grant and Sherman, writing many years later, with their own agenda, said nothing worthwhile. That is silly in the extreme. So despite your erroneous views, yes, they are still worth citing by historians, as are the writings of the southern writers.

 

[jackt62]

Grant's and Sherman's memoirs are still cited by academic and prize winning historians

Historians that cite self-serving memoirs as source material should at least offer corroborating evidence to back up those memoirs.

 

[breckod]

Like Sherman's and Grant's work may be less than entirely reliable? That of course is a point made by Albert Castel and Frank Varney.

Anyone who was primarily dependent on Grant and Sherman's writings would certainly be presenting something much less than the full picture, to be sure. What this has to do with my post or the thread is rather unclear though.

 

[Choatecav]

Boy, I gotta say that you "south-haters" have surely run out of something to complain about to adopt a topic like this one.

 

[David Moore]

Historians that cite self-serving memoirs as source material should at least offer corroborating evidence to back up those memoirs.

Of course. That is a big point of Frank Varney's first book. Authors keep citing other authors who cite Grant's Memoirs as their primary document. It becomes a self supporting circle.
IMO books are increasingly written with a "higher purpose" supporting a theme is more important than "historical truth." Grant as civil rights hero is a big one now. This is not to say he wasn't a civil rights hero but that idea shouldn't preclude critical discussion of other aspects of his career especially his generalship and how he came to command. It certainly shouldn't call for those who criticize Grant to be labeled Lost Cause advocates or worse.

 

[breckod]

Boy, I gotta say that you "south-haters" have surely run out of something to complain about to adopt a topic like this one.

The OP described the article as a hitpiece. If your complaint isn't actually with the person who posted the topic, you should address it a bit more specifically.

 

[JerryD]

Boy, I gotta say that you "south-haters" have surely run out of something to complain about to adopt a topic like this one.

I havent seen a single post I would consider from a "south hater". Care to be more explicit on what you are complaining about?

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Afterall, he was promoted to Lieutenant General. Someone must have thought he was doing something right.

The Confederates seemed compelled to promote generals based on the size of their command.

the Lost Cause is hardly ascendant today whereas Grant's and Sherman's memoirs are still cited by academic and prize winning historians.

I don't know that Sherman's memoirs are held in high regard.

Grant's still are. Not because they're flawless, but they're still better than most. But you and Varney have too much of a deep-seated, irrational hatred of Grant to understand that. This thread was about Forest but you had to make it about Grant. The author of the article linked by the OP makes the same mistake you do: rather than offering useful, valid relevant critiques of a historical figure, instead writing a hit piece motivated by an obsessive, irrational level of hatred.

In any case, citing something isn't the same as agreeing with it. What Grant, Sherman, Early, or anyone else wrote about an event they participated in is relevant, even if disagreed with based on other relevant sources.