Forrest Was Forrest a Bad Commander?

[GwilymT]

Forrest certainly was effective as a raider and disrupter of supply lines but seems wanting when it came to large scale engagements at the army level. It could be argued that his greatest value to the rebels was as a celebrity hero - propaganda.

 

[McClellandidnothingwrong]

So you're saying that Forrest was really good at beating the second team but when he had to face the first team he was lousy?

A bit like Grant

 

[Pat Answer]

Ain't loving to hate on General [place your pick here] fun?

 

[GwilymT]

A bit like Grant

Last time I checked, Grant pretty much defeated everyone so, no, not like war winning Grant at all.

 

[JerryD]

7th Mississippi: indeed, the legacy of Gen Forrest -- not to mention those of General Lee, Gen Jackson, every soldier who served in the Confederate Army, ever Southern civilian on the home front, every Southerner living or dead and the South itself -- has become a platform for the behavior you described. I can understand it, human nature being what it is and sinners that we all are; societal benefits accrue to the participants. One can make a career of it, eg Ty Seidule.

And it is sad, but over the last seven or so years -- and this is against my preference to always grant the benefit of the doubt -- I've come to regard those covertly or overtly mock, denounce and sneer at Genls Forrest, Lee, Jackson, et cetera -- to be engaged in precisely that sort of activity, rather than the quest for historical truth and accuracy. (and please note, I am not referring to anyone in this thread, least of all Mr Breckod.)

I suppose, though, this means that I am a captive of "lost cause mythology." Such is the state of discourse in "this fair land of freedom."

On the subject of hyperbole, I do not think anyone can rival Gen U.S. Grant, who said that Phil Sheridan's military skill was on the level of Napoleon Bonaparte: "I rank Sheridan with Napoleon and Frederick and the great commanders of history." (The quote is from Little Phil by Eric Wittenberg, in the prologue.) At least, I assume Gen Grant was engaging in hyperbole; I mean no slight against Gen Sheridan when I say that no student of military science could consider Fighting Phil, the terror of the Shenandoah and the tribes of the Great Plains, in the same class as the victors of Austerlitz and Leuthen. I do think Sheridan would have been a perfectly acceptable commander of hussars in le Grande Armee, however. Perhaps under Soult or Augureau, both of whom enjoyed a good plunder (in contrast to, eg, Davout, Ney and Oudinot, who did not., but they were the exceptions among the Marshalate and higher officers.)

I think you are confusing two different things. Lost Cause mythology has been recognized for some time as an organized effort by Southern writers to win the story of how the war was seen by history. For example, the war was not about slavery, Lee was the greatest general who ever lived, the southern soldier was chivalrous while northern soldiers committed atrocities. Lost Cause mythology was all about presenting a warped view of the war.

That is completely different from what is happening today, which is a reassessment of how we view the war and questioning who really deserves to be honored in this country. For example, the base renaming bill passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support. The issue there was whether it really made sense to name US Military bases after people who made their name killing US Military personnel. Or, does it make sense the the City of Memphis, which is majority african american, has to maintain a statute to Forrest, who was one of the early leaders of the Klan? If the local population does not want to honor that person, do they have the right to say we, today, do not want to be bound by the decisions of prior generations. This is all about assessing who we want to honor today.

 

[JerryD]

Not sure about that. Besides the Sherman quote by @19thGeorgia Forrest's tactics were studied at West Point well into the 20th Century. Forrest was an excellent commander who was also visited by US Army officers post war. Of course has Lt General Pershing said " Generals win battles logistics wins wars". Also by 1864 the Union cavalry simply outmatched the Confederate cavalry and or mounted infantry in numbers, logistics and better fire arms. Forrest did we could with what he had that's all a commander can do.
Leftyhunter

Oh, I agree with all that. Tactically he was brilliant. But that does not change that he had very little affect on the course of the war. People love to quote Sherman on him, but Sherman merely viewed him as a nuisance. You cant quote one adverse action Sherman was forced into because of Forrest.

 

[JerryD]

I don't rate Sheridan highly at all, but it's not hard to figure out why Grant thought highly of him. Grant hadn't worked in conjunction with cavalry in their traditional and supporting roles in the west, so Sheridan's failings in those areas didn't really register with him. From Grant's perspective, Sheridan talked and acted the way he wished more AotP officers would, and he got results in the Valley and Appomattox.

(Just giving Grant's PoV its due there, I think Sheridan had useful qualities but was also an odious bully and his insubordination to Meade should not have been tolerated)

Yeah, Sheridan was a real piece of work from a human being perspective. But like you said, he was aggressive to the extreme, which is what Grant was looking to instill some more of in the AOP.

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

The courage of a lion but often the sense of a donkey. He had a tendency to leap before looking and only good luck saved him on a number of occasions where he may have had a premature last stand.

Ryan

Very true, and his was also, apparently, something of a martinet. Yet (for me at least) in Rhea's five volumes on the Overland campaign, he always stands out as insanely courageous and daring. Almost alone among the Union commanders, to be honest. I hope I will not be accused of "lost cause mythology" when I suggest that in Rhea's magisterial work, as a group they do not come across overwhelming well. Please note, that is the impression from Rhea's books; while I have the OR for the Overland on my shelf, I have not studied in great detail (and let me say that the issue of whether Lee or Grant was the "better general" isn't one that particularly interests me, and not something I think is really relevant to the study of the war. Each had his own particular strengths and weaknesses).

But I digress. Custer, for me, is a bit like Marshal Ney. Ney was a disaster as an independent commander (see Dennewitz) and as a corps or wing commander, had the tendency to forget he was a Marshal. He'd grab his sword and run to the front line and jump into the fray with his troops (see Bautzen, which he probably single-handedly converted what could have been a major French victory to a very minor one; although since Bonaparte was low on cavalry at the time, he could not have pursued and destroyed the Allies, which was one of the primary functions of the cavalry back in those days). Still, it's impossible not to admire Ney for his courage (rearguard in the retreat from Moscow; the multiple charges at Waterloo, and too many other battles to mention). It's the same with Custer, for me - a brave man and the heart and soul of a warrior. I doubt I'd want to serve under him, though (lol).

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

I don't rate Sheridan highly at all, but it's not hard to figure out why Grant thought highly of him. Grant hadn't worked in conjunction with cavalry in their traditional and supporting roles in the west, so Sheridan's failings in those areas didn't really register with him. From Grant's perspective, Sheridan talked and acted the way he wished more AotP officers would, and he got results in the Valley and Appomattox.

(Just giving Grant's PoV its due there, I think Sheridan had useful qualities but was also an odious bully and his insubordination to Meade should not have been tolerated)

Thanks Breckod -- that's very helpful, and puts things in excellent context. I'm reading Cozzens Stone River book at the moment, and Sheridan (then an infantry commander) comes across as a conscientious and brave.

And let me also say I'm a bit newish to the study of the West; I've been researching my woodpile and identifying those who fought in the war. So far I have so far turned up 14 who were in the Army of Tennessee. (Two with Pemberton at Vicksburg. 21 in the ANV.) Are there any books you'd recommend as particularly good? I'm starting with Cozzens' trilogy, the old book by Stanley Horn and Thomas Connolley's two books, along with Grady McWhiney on Bragg, but you'll note those are Southern-centric. I'd like to look at the conflict from the U.S. side as well.

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

I think you are confusing two different things. Lost Cause mythology has been recognized for some time as an organized effort by Southern writers to win the story of how the war was seen by history. For example, the war was not about slavery, Lee was the greatest general who ever lived, the southern soldier was chivalrous while northern soldiers committed atrocities. Lost Cause mythology was all about presenting a warped view of the war.

That is completely different from what is happening today, which is a reassessment of how we view the war and questioning who really deserves to be honored in this country. For example, the base renaming bill passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support. The issue there was whether it really made sense to name US Military bases after people who made their name killing US Military personnel. Or, does it make sense the the City of Memphis, which is majority african american, has to maintain a statute to Forrest, who was one of the early leaders of the Klan? If the local population does not want to honor that person, do they have the right to say we, today, do not want to be bound by the decisions of prior generations. This is all about assessing who we want to honor today.

"Deserves to be honored."

At the risk of wandering into contemporary politics, I find the entire notion of politicians, academics, journalists (in other words, the most ignorant and morally compromised people in a laughably ignorant nation) and the Twitter mob deciding "who deserves to be honored" completely odious. If there is one thing that "this fair land of freedom" produces in abundance, it's mythology, and what is called the "lost cause" mythology does not go around killing people. As do "exceptional nation"; "the world desperately needs and cries out for American leadership"; "fighting to implement democracy" ; "defend democracy," et al ad nauseam. I could go on, but you see my point, I hope.

I have no problem at all with majority-black cities removing monuments. My only concern is that it's done in a proper and respectful way, and the monuments given to the UDC or other organizations that can make respectful displays of them. Nor do I have a problem with the base renaming. As the veteran of one of America's "crusades" (I have the scars to prove it, and the experience helped me consider American history, including the Civil War, in a somewhat different light.) I do not want the names of Southern soldiers associated with the U.S. Army and its "democracy-building" antics of the last fifty or so years.

 

[JerryD]

"Deserves to be honored."

At the risk of wandering into contemporary politics, I find the entire notion of politicians, academics and the Twitter mob deciding "who deserves to be honored" somewhat odious.

Well, we certainly disagree there. Every generation not only deserves, but has to decide who to honor. Its a very large part of a country's culture, and to neglect to do that, to me at least, is to ignore history.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Almost alone among the Union commanders, to be honest. I hope I will not be accused of "lost cause mythology" when I suggest that in Rhea's magisterial work, as a group they do not come across overwhelming well.

You're someone sufficiently interested in the American Civil War that you've read all five volumes of Rhea's Overland Campaign series, but until this thread you've never heard of The Lost Cause?

I find that incredulous.

You may want to read this thread which reviews the first Confederate history, published way back in 1866, which coined the term:

Member Review - The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates by Edward Pollard | Civil War Books, Stories, & Media

The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates by Edward Pollard (1866). Available Free Here. The Lost Cause by Edward Pollard is a seminal work in the development of a Southern White historical tradition recalling, celebrating, and interpreting the fallen Confederacy to...

civilwartalk.com

It's the same with Custer, for me - a brave man and the heart and soul of a warrior.

In that regard, Custer had a lot in common with Forrest.

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

You're someone sufficiently interested in the American Civil War that you've read all five volumes of Rhea's Overland Campaign series, but until this thread you've never heard of The Lost Cause?

I find that incredulous.

You may want to read this thread which reviews the first Confederate history, published way back in 1866, which coined the term:

Member Review - The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates by Edward Pollard | Civil War Books, Stories, & Media

The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates by Edward Pollard (1866). Available Free Here. The Lost Cause by Edward Pollard is a seminal work in the development of a Southern White historical tradition recalling, celebrating, and interpreting the fallen Confederacy to...

civilwartalk.com

In that regard, Custer had a lot in common with Forrest.

Of course I know what the "Lost Cause" is, but I'm interested in seeing how it's been redefined, extended and expounded upon in our modern, enlightened, progressive, Twitter and social-mediated milieu. And I'm even more interested in seeing how it is defined by people who deploy and hurl accusations of "lost cause mythology" to dismiss arguments. And many of said hurlers (not you, and no one in this thread, of course) would not be able the century in which the war was fought or spell the name of the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. It functions very much like the very popular charge of "r*c*sm." Thank you for the link, which I'll peruse with great interest. I have read several of Pollard's books, as it happens, one of which is called "the lost cause regained."

P.S., shouldn't it be "incredible"?

 

[breckod]

Myth he wasn't! Sold slaves and had different rules then others slavers for purchasing and selling.
Gave blacks their freedom if they fought with him which they did.
Used his own money to organize his army.

General Sherman was scared of him and the way he fought.
He was a true Patriot for a cause.

Most of this is fiction, but I find it noteworthy the extent to which the bold isn't even a really known fiction (say a common Lost Cause myth, for example) it appears to be something you just made up. Why do this?

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

Most of this is fiction, but I find it noteworthy the extent to which the bold isn't even a really known fiction (say a common Lost Cause myth, for example) it appears to be something you just made up. Why do this?

Mr Breckod, here's where you can help me. Can you list some of the more common "Lost Cause" myths/fictions? As a perusal of the thread will reveal, I'm familiar with Pollard's writings, but I'm very interested though in how the modern age/current zerigest defines the components of the "lost cause."

Please note, I'm not interested in starting a flame war or insulting the memory of U.S. soldiers or speculating on the personalities of U.S. commanders (or Confederate ones, for that matter). Nor in arguing the points of the fiction/mythology. I'm simply interested in the topic, as I've heard "lost cause mythologist" hurled as the deepest of insults in unexpected arenas (eg. discussions of board war-games - it's a shame the extent to which politics intrudes into everything these days, but it is what it is).

Also, see my above request for books about the Western theater from the perspective of the U.S. - I'd appreciate any recommendations, from general/campaign histories to memoirs.

thank you.

 

[JerryD]

Well, I can't think of anything that contributes more to the "ignoring of history" than the erasure of monuments and their replacement by a "narrative" offering up a materialist, gnostic interpretation of history - but then again,, that's how "history" is taught in the U.S.A. It's a sort of debased whiggism, the march of humanity toward the Elysian fields of equality. One sees it in the writings of "conservative" activist Harry Jaffa as well as the ostensible progressives; under both systems, the U.S. has the assigned role of forcing this Utopia, at bayonet point if needed (and, it would seem, preferred by the foreign policy establishment and the arms manufacturers).

Im also very uncomfortable with the notion that each generation can "reinterpret" things as it sees fit, and subject to the trends of intellectual fashion. this skirts quite close to the notion that there are no "eternal verities," and no permanent truths of human nature and experience. I don't think this is what you meant, but it seems to me that is the end consequence of that line of thinking. There is no "truth" and "Everything is permitted," in the words of Ivan Karamazov.

And the extend to which the activists speak for anyone besides themselves remains an open question. Looking at pics of the protests on Monument Avenue in Richmond, the crowds seemed to be about 90% college-educated white people, likely most with degrees in what is still known as the "humanities." One can't but recall the theories of Peter Turchin about elite overproduction.

The United States has a culture? News to me. I suppose it's what's churned out by Hollywood and rappers? Beethoven and Wagner are culture; Dostoevsky and Thomas Hardy as well; Gothic and rococo architecture also. The Barbie movie, 50 Cent, strip malls, Super Bowl commercials... I'm going to need some convincing, I'm afraid.

At any rate, we are wandering into contemporary politics, which I understand to be verboten. Let us politely accept that we differ dramatically in our view of things. I appreciate your politeness, which on my side I will maintain.

Well, needless to say, we disagree completely. Its ignorant in the extreme to think removing a statue somehow erases history. Last I checked no history book has been edited as a result of a statue being removed. That is just silly.

And you take a very big leap of logic from assessing a historic character's worth and nihilism.

As for your denigrating comments about the US, no response is necessary for such a foolish comment.

But yes, we have deviated far afield. Suffice to say your opinions stray far from mine.

 

[10th Michigan Infantry]

Its ignorant in the extreme to think removing a statue somehow erases history. Last I checked no history book has been edited as a result of a statue being removed.

It denigrates public knowledge and interest in history, it also makes people forget the historical significance of the area they are in, aswell as the people who are important to that local area, in my opinion atleast.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Mr Breckod, here's where you can help me. Can you list some of the more common "Lost Cause" myths/fictions? As a perusal of the thread will reveal, I'm familiar with Pollard's writings, but I'm very interested though in how the modern age/current zerigest defines the components of the "lost cause."

Since this thread is about Nathan Bedford Forrest I would suggest if you want a discussion of the Lost Cause you start a separate thread on the subject.

A search of the site will also turn up many past threads on the subject.

P.S., shouldn't it be "incredible"?

No, I mean incredulous, as in unbelievable.

 

[10th Michigan Infantry]

I don't rate Sheridan highly at all, but it's not hard to figure out why Grant thought highly of him. Grant hadn't worked in conjunction with cavalry in their traditional and supporting roles in the west, so Sheridan's failings in those areas didn't really register with him. From Grant's perspective, Sheridan talked and acted the way he wished more AotP officers would, and he got results in the Valley and Appomattox.

(Just giving Grant's PoV its due there, I think Sheridan had useful qualities but was also an odious bully and his insubordination to Meade should not have been tolerated)

Might be a little controversial, but if I were forced to rank the top five Civil War cavalry men, they'd go as follows

1. Forrest
2. Stuart
3. Custer
4. Sheridan
5. Hampton

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

Well, needless to say, we disagree completely. Its ignorant in the extreme to think removing a statue somehow erases history. Last I checked no history book has been edited as a result of a statue being removed. That is just silly.

And you take a very big leap of logic from assessing a historic character's worth and nihilism.

As for your denigrating comments about the US, no response is necessary for such a foolish comment.

But yes, we have deviated far afield. Suffice to say your opinions stray far from mine.

It's foolish to say that 50 Cent and the Barbie movie fall somewhat short of the standard represented by Wagner's Ring cycle and The Brothers Karamazov?

OK then. I've thoroughly enjoyed our little chat and it doesn't need to continue. Best wishes.