Forrest Was Forrest a Bad Commander?

[Eric Wittenberg]

Eric Wittenberg has come up more than once in this thread. I think most hold him in high regard as an expert in CW cavalry. From what I remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, Wittenberg doesn't hold Forrest in high regard as a commander.

No, I definitely don't. I've written about this extensively. The links are to probably my most detailed discussions:

https://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=21

Rantings of a Civil War Historian » The TRUE Wizard of the Saddle

civilwarcavalry.com

 

[Belfoured]

Easier to say Grantists than memorize or keep straight or even spell all the odd pseudonyms.

And the bizarre obsession with handles continues.

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

To be fair to Davis if there's a thin bench you go with what you have.
Leftyhunter

True (alas).

 

[Belfoured]

But only a novice would pay much attention to someone who was limited to such sources.

You seem to be under the delusion that you're the only poster here who knows how to access archival materials.

 

[Belfoured]

If I had to single out one thing about my book it would be it's treatment about the role of Washburne. Going through his papers at the LOC is not something to make light of. His papers are now on line I think.
Really if you haven't read my book you really only know what I think from this - by my own admission- lesser history medium. Internet fora are not the equivalent of books.

Internet fora are not the equivalent of books.

Really? Hey, thanks for the enlightenment. Any other gems to share?

 

[Belfoured]

Ok, well let me clarify......

A commander who performed as he and his men did at: Sacramento, Ky., Fallen Timbers after Shiloh, Murfreesboro, Tn., Woodbury, TN., Brentwood, TN., Parkers Crossroads, Brices Crossroads, the west TN campaign, covering the retreat out of Nashville, and embarrassed Federal officers like Able Streight, Sturgis, Sooy Smith, etc., and had the comments made about him by Lee, D.H. Hill, Tecumseh Sherman, etc. and many, many more examples...................... You mean there needs to be a thread about whether he was a "bad Commander?" I mean, come on.... Are you kidding me??

All the Monday morning quarterbacks pontificate about how Ft. Pillow was handled or about his slave business or his Klan involvement, blah, blah, blah.......

Here's an idea... let's slam the Roman Empire and emperors as they enslaved people from every part of the known world. Or the Assyrians or Greeks..... Also, let's slam Hannibal for taking his elephants over the Alps when invading Italy. That had to be cold and painful on the elephants. Where's PETA when you need them.

This thread should not have had enough gas to have gotten past the first reply.

Here's a suggestion - try reading Failure in the Saddle. Anybody who thinks Dave Powell is a "South Hater" is operating in the dark.

 

[Sowbelly and Hardtack]

I'm not a Forrest scholar and I know a great deal more about Mosby. With that said "Fortune Favors The Bold" and I believe part of the Forrest legend/myth stems from the fact that he was bold. So much so at times he was actually reckless. Keep in mind we are assessing Forrest's military capabilities with a 160 years of hindsight which others at the time didn't have. Just my two cents.

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

I'd be only too happy to do that. I'm not sure what the policy is on this site about promoting things so I've been reluctant to talk too deeply about it. I usually mention it only to remind people here that Ive spent over thirty years studying Rosecrans.
It's the first book written in over 50 years about Union General William S.Rosecrans.
I'd say its key strength is an in depth discussion of how politics detemined the fate of Union generals and specifically the role of Congressman Elihu Washburne. I think it's also very strong on the battle of Iuka which is my current area of study.
It has been positively reviewed and what I'm very pleased that it was called "thoroughly researched" by one lreviewer.
Thanks for asking.

I may be guilty of triggering the discussion about Rosecrans. My copy of Mr Moore's book arrived yesterday and I'm roughly a third of the way through it. I find it to be a great piece of scholarship that I think anyone interested in the Civil War and the West should read. Mr Moore, correct me if I'm wrong, but your book examines official/contemporary sources to reveal the role of Gen Rosencrans' in the Union victories in the West. . . and it reveals that much if not all of the accepted narrative, derived as it from the memoirs of Grant, doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

And that Rosecrans should be recognized as one of the great Union generals. My impression thus far is that he was a brave and resourceful commander, greatly admired by his troops, and a man of honor and decency.

I'm not sure why anyone would find this offensive or threatening, or be unwilling to engage in a scholarly manner.

Nor do I see the sense in judging Forrest or other Confederate commanders, soldiers and civilians by prevailing standards. If those are to be the plumb-line of virtue and vice, we have no choice but to consign everyone who lived anywhere prior to 1964 to the pit. EG, Hannibal and the Romans, as Choatecav noted above. The Greeks. The Byzantines. The Carolingians. Et cetera to infinity. I don't think "truth" is something fungible that can be changed according to the whims of fashion. Ditto such virtues as "courage" and "honor." This may invite that charge of "historicism," but men have to be seen in their times.

 

[breckod]

My cliffnotes view of Forrest as a military commander is that he was a very effective raider. Compared to fellow raiders John Hunt Morgan and Joe Wheeler, he was pretty reliably energetic, unlike the oft-negligent Wheeler, and he was a good intuitive tactician on the battlefield and strong under pressure, unlike Morgan whose record went down the toilet once things stopped being easy. But Forrest didn't excel in any role outside of raider and his gaudy W-L record is partly a product of operating against the rear-echelon at a time when there was a paucity of Union cavalry in theater to oppose him.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I may be guilty of triggering the discussion about Rosecrans. My copy of Mr Moore's book arrived yesterday and I'm roughly a third of the way through it. I find it to be a great piece of scholarship that I think anyone interested in the Civil War and the West should read. Mr Moore, correct me if I'm wrong, but your book examines official/contemporary sources to reveal the role of Gen Rosencrans' in the Union victories in the West. . . and it reveals that much if not all of the accepted narrative, derived as it from the memoirs of Grant, doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

And that Rosecrans should be recognized as one of the great Union generals. My impression thus far is that he was a brave and resourceful commander, greatly admired by his troops, and a man of honor and decency.

Any criticism of Rosecrans in the book?

 

[Belfoured]

My cliffnotes view of Forrest as a military commander is that he was a very effective raider. Compared to fellow raiders John Hunt Morgan and Joe Wheeler, he was pretty reliably energetic, unlike the oft-negligent Wheeler, and he was a good intuitive tactician on the battlefield and strong under pressure, unlike Morgan whose record went down the toilet once things stopped being easy. But Forrest didn't excel in any role outside of raider and his gaudy W-L record is partly a product of operating against the rear-echelon at a time when there was a paucity of Union cavalry in theater to oppose him.

To follow up, the well-done Powell book Failure in the Saddle and the equally well-done Parsons book Work for Giants (about Tupelo) are IMHO consistent with that. Forrest's performance in the "team" context seems not to have measured up as well.

 

[gjpratt]

I just received the announcement from Savas-Beatie that the reprint of Ed Bearss' obscure book on the Battle of Tupelo is now available. Edited by Dave Powell. That is a pretty formidable duo of historians. It should provide more insight to the "teamwork" point. The title itself is fairly strong considering that Bearss was a Forrest admirer: Outwitting Forrest: The Tupelo Campaign in Mississippi, June 22-July 3, 1864.

 

[bdtex]

And that is why lawyer should NOT write history books

Gordon C. Rhea is a lawyer. Have you read any of his books?

 

[Belfoured]

Gordon C. Rhea is a lawyer. Have you read any of his books?

Not to mention @ericwittenberg

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Not to mention @ericwittenberg

The individual in question is only interested in launching personal attacks against me, with no penalties being imposed for his doing so.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Then the Grantists came in and the result was the usual decay.

There's a big part of your problem right there. Grantists?

Yes, overall I think favorably of Ulysses Grant.

But here's the part that might bake your noodle, I think favorably of William Rosecrans too.

It's not some zero sum game.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

So its what lawyers call double hearsay.

And that is why lawyer should NOT write history books

Please explain to us why you think a third-hand story told 60 years after the event supposedly occurred should be treated as a reliable source.

 

[jackt62]

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.

It has been pointed out in this thread that Forrest's strengths were in the area of raiding and his ability to use his force as mounted infantry, and not in the area of traditional cavalry functions. Forrest was able to get the better of many western federal commanders, but the overall strategic result for the southern war effort was nil. I would say that much of his historical allure has to do with his cunning personality, charisma, and daring exploits, which for better or worse, has engaged the imagination of countless people both north and south well beyond any military influence he might have had or not.

 

[David Moore]

There's a big part of your problem right there. Grantists?

Yes, overall I think favorably of Ulysses Grant.

But here's the part that might bake your noodle, I think favorably of William Rosecrans too.

It's not some zero sum game.

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.

 

[DanSBHawk]

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.

No, it's really not zero-sum, either now or then. Some people, like John Schofield, were friends of both Grant and Rosecrans.