Forrest Was Forrest a Bad Commander?

[breckod]

@Aelfwin when I was in your position of wanting to learn more about the Union side of the Western Theater, I started with Lamers' biography of Rosecrans, The Edge of Glory. It is a very balanced and objective biography. There is a newer biography by David G. Moore, a regular poster here, that I have on my reading backburnrer. I profited from Brian Steel Wills' biography of George Thomas. I also recommend Annals of the Army of the Cumberland, even though it is a bit of a ponderous read. This work was highly recommended to us by Jim Ogden as he was leading a tour of the Tullahoma Campaign.

To return to Forrest, his relative inactivity during the Tullahoma Campaign was because he was still recuperating from his pistol wound by Willis Gould just before Rosecrans opened the Campaign.

The Lamers book is certainly a must-read if Rosecrans is a subject of interest. I think calling it "balanced" is a stretch, however. Lamers was enamored of his subject and the book is a bit dated.

View attachment 479729

If you believe that, I have a very fine bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

So its what lawyers call double hearsay. A guy said that he heard a guy say that Lee said....

Color me unconvinced. I would love to know what Lee thought Forrest accomplished. If Lee did say this, he was woefully ignorant of the facts.

My thoughts exactly. Double heresy from 1930!

Fremantle did visit Bragg's army. Did he meet Forrest during that visit? Does Fremantle mention Forrest in his writings about his trip through the Confederacy?

I find it unlikely Lee would have told an outside observer that Forrest, who Lee never met or commanded, was a better cavalry officer than Stuart, whom Lee thought very highly of and was still alive at the time serving under Lee. Even if Lee felt that way (why would he?) it seems again Lee's nature to essentially criticize Stuart in that manner. It doesn't fit with Lee's style.

Having visited both main Confederate armies it would certainly seem reasonable that Fremantle discussed the use of Confederate cavalry with Lee. Perhaps Lee would have even made a comparison between Stuart's rides around McClellan and what he'd heard of Forrest's raids.

 

[breckod]

So its what lawyers call double hearsay. A guy said that he heard a guy say that Lee said....

Color me unconvinced. I would love to know what Lee thought Forrest accomplished. If Lee did say this, he was woefully ignorant of the facts.

It's an anecdote that can't be dated to before 1930. If nothing else, it is a good benchmark for who is utterly credulous and who is not.

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

Apologies for what ?

I haven't seen anything to report.

Anything about Nathan Bedford Forrest will be always controversial.
Folks either love him or hate him ... and no one's opinion will be changed.

I believe the issue was my asking about the lost cause mythology.

What I have learned, though (from here and elsewhere), is that there was a dark and sinister conspiracy orchestrated by ex-Confederates (e.g., Pollard) tto "highjack" the history of the war and its causes. They created the myth that the South fought for noble causes (eg, self-government, to maintain the principle of states rights against overarching federal power, free trade, a traditional social order). The truth, of course, is that the South fought to preserve a brutal social order built on the vicious exploitation of African Americans.

Nevertheless, the dastardly Southerners were, somehow or another, wildly successful in this program of mythopoesis; the U.S. was helpless to prevent its dissemination. The South, thus, won the peace, and the myth held sway over all.

However, in the last seven or eight years, there has been a general awakening and re-valuation (because every generation needs to define the truth for itself). And we now understand that the Confederacy should not be honored, nor its soldiers memorialized; its symbols should be eradicated, and the mythology must be purged from the body politic and perish from the earth.

Forrest is, of course, part and parcel of the mythology; indeed, something of an exemplar, in that a brutal slave trader and a crude, illiterate border ruffian was mythologized into a military genius.

 

[breckod]

Why? Because we analyze facts and are educated? Sorry if you dont like having to face the truth.

Of course, of non-historians doing history writing, you will often find lawyers and journalists, which makes sense since there's significant skillset overlap.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

Fremantle's work is indeed fascinating.

But after reading it three times, I wonder what was accurate and what he embellished.

I don't think this distinguished Englishman ever met Bedford Forrest..

 

[breckod]

My thoughts exactly. Double heresy from 1930!

Fremantle did visit Bragg's army. Did he meet Forrest during that visit? Does Fremantle mention Forrest in his writings about his trip through the Confederacy?

I find it unlikely Lee would have told an outside observer that Forrest, who Lee never met or commanded, was a better cavalry officer than Stuart, whom Lee thought very highly of and was still alive at the time serving under Lee. Even if Lee felt that way (why would he?) it seems again Lee's nature to essentially criticize Stuart in that manner. It doesn't fit with Lee's style.

Having visited both main Confederate armies it would certainly seem reasonable that Fremantle discussed the use of Confederate cavalry with Lee. Perhaps Lee would have even made a comparison between Stuart's rides around McClellan and what he'd heard of Forrest's raids.

If the nameless Englishman is supposed to be Fremantle (I'm not sure if you're suggesting that), that's wrong because he went back to England in 1863 and did not return to the States. This purported conversation was supposed to have happened after the war.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I believe the issue was my asking about the lost cause mythology.

What I have learned, though (from here and elsewhere), is that there was a dark and sinister conspiracy orchestrated by ex-Confederates (e.g., Pollard) tto "highjack" the history of the war and its causes. They created the myth that the South fought for noble causes (eg, self-government, to maintain the principle of states rights against overarching federal power, free trade, a traditional social order). The truth, of course, is that the South fought to preserve a brutal social order built on the vicious exploitation of African Americans.

Nevertheless, the dastardly Southerners were, somehow or another, wildly successful in this program of mythopoesis; the U.S. was helpless to prevent its dissemination. The South, thus, won the peace, and the myth held sway over all.

However, in the last seven or eight years, there has been a general awakening and re-valuation (because every generation needs to define the truth for itself). And we now understand that the Confederacy should not be honored, nor its soldiers memorialized; its symbols should be eradicated, and the mythology must be purged from the body politic and perish from the earth.

Forrest is, of course, part and parcel of the mythology; indeed, something of an exemplar, in that a brutal slave trader and a crude, illiterate border ruffian was mythologized into a military genius.

I hope you didn't pull a muscle building that strawman.

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

Fremantle's work is indeed fascinating.

But after reading it three times, I wonder what was accurate and what he embellished.

I don't think this distinguished Englishman ever met Bedford Forrest..

A rule of thumb that I might recommend is that anything complimentary of Southern commanders, Southern soldiers or the Southern cause is inaccurate and wildly embellished.

 

[breckod]

A rule of thumb that I might recommend is that anything complimentary of Southern commanders, Southern soldiers or the Southern cause is inaccurate and wildly embellished.

In retrospect the Wagner reference was more of a tell than I thought.

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

In retrospect the Wagner reference was more of a tell than I thought.

Ha. I know what you're trying to insinuate. It's so very predictable and, as such, disappointing. Thanks for the book recommendations, though.

 

[danny]

Oh dear! It seems that General Lee was an early distributor of lost cause mythology.

That is thrown around about as much as the race card

 

[breckod]

That is thrown around about as much as the race card

This is inherently an incredibly funny thing to say in a thread about Nathan Bedford Forrest, kudos.

 

[danny]

I believe the issue was my asking about the lost cause mythology.

What I have learned, though (from here and elsewhere), is that there was a dark and sinister conspiracy orchestrated by ex-Confederates (e.g., Pollard) tto "highjack" the history of the war and its causes. They created the myth that the South fought for noble causes (eg, self-government, to maintain the principle of states rights against overarching federal power, free trade, a traditional social order). The truth, of course, is that the South fought to preserve a brutal social order built on the vicious exploitation of African Americans.

Nevertheless, the dastardly Southerners were, somehow or another, wildly successful in this program of mythopoesis; the U.S. was helpless to prevent its dissemination. The South, thus, won the peace, and the myth held sway over all.

However, in the last seven or eight years, there has been a general awakening and re-valuation (because every generation needs to define the truth for itself). And we now understand that the Confederacy should not be honored, nor its soldiers memorialized; its symbols should be eradicated, and the mythology must be purged from the body politic and perish from the earth.

Forrest is, of course, part and parcel of the mythology; indeed, something of an exemplar, in that a brutal slave trader and a crude, illiterate border ruffian was mythologized into a military genius.

I'm sure most any "Johnny comes lately" is welcome to pile on. Mob rule #37

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

I'm sure most any "Johnny comes lately" is welcome to pile on. Mob rule #37

Well, I assume I'm on the verge of being reported/banned, as a dealer in Lost Causery. At any rate, this has been a very eye-opening experience.

I see you're from Hattiesburg. Mississippi is about my favorite state... the country alongside Route 61 from Vicksburg to Natchez is the most beautiful in the world. (I don't know that Forrest was ever down that way as a cavalry commander.) I was there last week; nice to see the monument is still in Port Gibson. One of my people was in the 2nd Mississippi, with Wm Faulkner's grandfather, no less. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, neighbor.\

(edited to correct highway - thanks 7th MS

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

Route 66 from Vicksburg to Natchez

Actually that's Highway 61.
( from New Orleans to Chicago) .

from Vicksburg to Natchez is the most beautiful in the world.

LOL !

For gawd's sake, please don't say such,
Some may believe ya !

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

Actually that's Highway 61.


( from New Orleans to Chicago) .



LOL !

For gawd's sake, please don't say such,
Some may believe ya !

Hahaha - yes, it's 61. Reckon I was thinking of the song. And yeah, don't want the word to get out -- I must see two California plates every day in my part of Texas.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

(I don't know that Forrest was ever down that way as a cavalry commander.)

He was never that far south in a military capacity.

But as a pre War slave trader, I would guess he knew Vicksburg and Natchez very well.
After all... Natchez, Mississippi was the second largest "slave market" within the Union.

 

[BillO]

I believe the issue was my asking about the lost cause mythology.

What I have learned, though (from here and elsewhere), is that there was a dark and sinister conspiracy orchestrated by ex-Confederates (e.g., Pollard) tto "highjack" the history of the war and its causes. They created the myth that the South fought for noble causes (eg, self-government, to maintain the principle of states rights against overarching federal power, free trade, a traditional social order). The truth, of course, is that the South fought to preserve a brutal social order built on the vicious exploitation of African Americans.

Nevertheless, the dastardly Southerners were, somehow or another, wildly successful in this program of mythopoesis; the U.S. was helpless to prevent its dissemination. The South, thus, won the peace, and the myth held sway over all.

However, in the last seven or eight years, there has been a general awakening and re-valuation (because every generation needs to define the truth for itself). And we now understand that the Confederacy should not be honored, nor its soldiers memorialized; its symbols should be eradicated, and the mythology must be purged from the body politic and perish from the earth.

Forrest is, of course, part and parcel of the mythology; indeed, something of an exemplar, in that a brutal slave trader and a crude, illiterate border ruffian was mythologized into a military genius.

What a bunch of rubbish.

 

[Stone in the wall]

If you think it appropriate to portray Forrest as some hard scrabble enlisted man who worked his way up through the ranks to Colonel then enjoy that fantasy.

Where did I say that?