Forrest Was Forrest a Bad Commander?

[JerryD]

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..

I dont think the letter refers to the Fremantle. It says the English Officer visited Lee at Washington College and I dont think Fremantle ever came back to visit Lee there, but I could be wrong.

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

What a bunch of rubbish.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[David Moore]

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.

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

Lamers' book doesn't go far enough. It's light on Elihu Washburne's role in the promotion and survival of Grant. It is of course a very important book as Lamers went where no other author had gone before. Lamers had access to the Rosecrans' Papers when they were still in family custody. Historical opinion without documentation is little more than a parlor game. I've written a book on Rosecrans that was called "thoroughly researched"in a published review. Highest praise IMO.

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

Lamers' book doesn't go far enough. It's light on Elihu Washburne's role in the promotion and survival of Grant. It is of course a very important book as Lamers went where no other author had gone before. Lamers had access to the Rosecrans' Papers when they were still in family custody. Historical opinion without documentation is little more than a parlor game. I've written a book on Rosecrans that was called "thoroughly researched"in a published review. Highest praise IMO.

David, much obliged. I will add that one to the top of the pile. "Luck" comes in many forms, with political connections being a huge one.

 

[10th Michigan Infantry]

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'm not quite sure being a "lost causer" is a bannable offense here a (though I may be wrong), I've often been called that because of my stance of there being good men on both sides who fought for good, honorable causes. From my understanding the Lost Cause is a book, not an ideology.

 

[David Moore]

David, much obliged. I will add that one to the top of the pile. "Luck" comes in many forms, with political connections being a huge one.

Grant was lucky in that he was living in the same town -Galena Illinois- when the War broke out as Washburne. Without that connection people would never have heard of Grant. Lincoln barely know anything about him except what he had heard from Washburne.
Grant is lucky today in that he is the anti-Robert E.Lee. He has become a civil rights figure of sorts. However he was never particularly popular in his own party and was denied a third presidential nomination in 1880. Radical Charles Sumner didn't particularly like Grant.
History isn't a movie script. It is what actually happened - which requires years of primary source study to only partially discover - and doesn't fit into a single theme. Parlor game discussion is easier.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I'm not quite sure being a "lost causer" is a bannable offense here

Bannable by the mods? Definitely not.

It will land a poster on the Ignore list of some users and the Favorites list of others.

 

[breckod]

Where did I say that?

Climbed to rank of a General from the rank of Private. Must have been doing a good job.

As extensively discussed, Forrest didn't do any "job" between the ranks of private and Colonel. He did some recruiting and got a commission for it, entirely typical.

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

Grant was lucky in that he was living in the same town -Galena Illinois- when the War broke out as Washburne. Without that connection people would never have heard of Grant. Lincoln barely know anything about him except what he had heard from Washburne.
Grant is lucky today in that he is the anti-Robert E.Lee. He has become a civil rights figure of sorts. However he was never particularly popular in his own party and was denied a third presidential nomination in 1880. Radical Charles Sumner didn't particularly like Grant.
History isn't a movie script. It is what actually happened - which requires years of primary source study to only partially discover - and doesn't fit into a single theme. Parlor game discussion is easier.

Well said sir. Grant as a civil rights hero does seem to be the thrust of Chernow's book and a few other entities. It's too bad that history in the US had been reduced to this gnostic notion of Good vs Evil and the knee jerk dismissal of many sources as "lost causery,". "What happened" lives in the grey areas and the human heart is unknowable. Good and evil runs through everyone, as Solzhenitsyn noted.

And I also agree with 10th Michigan that there were good and brave men on both sides and we should honor the memory of all. Like Forrest, who I do not think was an evil, brutal man, and George Armstrong Custer, a fierce warrior who was magnanimous in victory. And Buford and Gibbon, on the US side.

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

Lamers' book doesn't go far enough. It's light on Elihu Washburne's role in the promotion and survival of Grant. It is of course a very important book as Lamers went where no other author had gone before. Lamers had access to the Rosecrans' Papers when they were still in family custody. Historical opinion without documentation is little more than a parlor game. I've written a book on Rosecrans that was called "thoroughly researched"in a published review. Highest praise IMO.

Just bought it. Look forward to reading.

 

[19thGeorgia]

Forrest captured some 15 thousand to 20 thousand federal troops over the course of the war and enough supplies to outfit an army or two. Sounds effective to me.

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

I'm not quite sure being a "lost causer" is a bannable offense here a (though I may be wrong), I've often been called that because of my stance of there being good men on both sides who fought for good, honorable causes. From my understanding the Lost Cause is a book, not an ideology.

Well, a number of my posts were reported. Pretty sure I know who. It's amusing more than anything.

Anyway, as you probably know, Forrest and Mrs Forrest were reinterred a few years ago in Elm Springs. I attended the ceremony. It was very moving.

 

[JerryD]

I've often been called that because of my stance of there being good men on both sides who fought for good, honorable causes.

I dont think there can be much dispute that this is correct. People need to differentiate between why individual people fought, as opposed to why States seceded, and thus triggering the conflict. You have many people who fought for the CSA who opposed secession, R.E. Lee being just one example. Not to mention that the vast majority of men in the ranks of the CSA were not slave owners and often enough resented them. The vast majority of them were not fighting to preserve slavery, but had their own reasons for enlisting (for those that enlisted anyway; those who were conscripted is a whole other issue).

 

[JerryD]

Well said sir. Grant as a civil rights hero does seem to be the thrust of Chernow's book and a few other entities. It's too bad that history in the US had been reduced to this gnostic notion of Good vs Evil and the knee jerk dismissal of many sources as "lost causery,". "What happened" lives in the grey areas and the human heart is unknowable. Good and evil runs through everyone, as Solzhenitsyn noted.

And I also agree with 10th Michigan that there were good and brave men on both sides and we should honor the memory of all. Like Forrest, who I do not think was an evil, brutal man, and George Armstrong Custer, a fierce warrior who was magnanimous in victory. And Buford and Gibbon, on the US side.

Do you dispute that he effectively brought an end to the first iteration of the Klan?

 

[DanSBHawk]

Grant was lucky in that he was living in the same town -Galena Illinois- when the War broke out as Washburne. Without that connection people would never have heard of Grant. Lincoln barely know anything about him except what he had heard from Washburne.
Grant is lucky today in that he is the anti-Robert E.Lee. He has become a civil rights figure of sorts. However he was never particularly popular in his own party and was denied a third presidential nomination in 1880. Radical Charles Sumner didn't particularly like Grant.
History isn't a movie script. It is what actually happened - which requires years of primary source study to only partially discover - and doesn't fit into a single theme. Parlor game discussion is easier.

Bolded statement is completely unknowable. I think trying to reduce Grant into nothing more than a Washburne puppet is a bit misleading.

 

[David Moore]

Just bought it. Look forward to reading.

If you have any questions about anything in the book let me know. I'm always open to criticism.

 

[David Moore]

Well said sir. Grant as a civil rights hero does seem to be the thrust of Chernow's book and a few other entities. It's too bad that history in the US had been reduced to this gnostic notion of Good vs Evil and the knee jerk dismissal of many sources as "lost causery,". "What happened" lives in the grey areas and the human heart is unknowable. Good and evil runs through everyone, as Solzhenitsyn noted.

And I also agree with 10th Michigan that there were good and brave men on both sides and we should honor the memory of all. Like Forrest, who I do not think was an evil, brutal man, and George Armstrong Custer, a fierce warrior who was magnanimous in victory. And Buford and Gibbon, on the US side.

The use of history is - and always has been- to support political and cultural views. The fact is there was widespread push for sectional reconciliation beginning in the late 19th century. Not unanimous but widespread. This was particularly true of the actual combatants including Rosecrans. Very few people were racial egalitarians then or really until the mid twentieth century. One may not like that but one can't really deny it. One must also be aware of the unequal - to say the least - distribution of the African American population among the various states in the 19th and much of the 20 centuries.
The point of history should be to understand the past not just condemn or praise it uncritically or to cherry pick debating points. For the record I've always lived in Washington DC and have witnessed a great variety of opinions and actions on "social justice" issues in my seven decades of living there. People, what motivates them and their consequent actions are to say the least multi-faceted. More than a single book, movie or documentary can explain.

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

The use of history is - and always has been- to support political and cultural views. The fact is there was widespread push for sectional reconciliation beginning in the late 19th century. Not unanimous but widespread. This was particularly true of the actual combatants including Rosecrans. Very few people were racial egalitarians then or really until the mid twentieth century. One may not like that but one can't really deny it. One must also be aware of the unequal - to say the least - distribution of the African American population among the various states in the 19th and much of the 20 centuries.
The point of history should be to understand the past not just condemn or praise it uncritically or to cherry pick debating points. For the record I've always lived in Washington DC and have witnessed a great variety of opinions and actions on "social justice" issues in my seven decades of living there. People, what motivates them and their consequent actions are to say the least multi-faceted. More than a single book, movie or documentary can explain.

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?

 

[David Moore]

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?

These are all topics I know little about. I will say 19th century Civil War history was very frank in terms of criticism of people especially the closer in time to the actual events something was written. As time goes by fewer people remember the events and the process of turning those events into culture is well underway. There are exceptions when someone is made into a martyr or hero shortly after their death. Lincoln is an example. All this shows the Importance of looking at older sources. Once an idea becomes accepted it can be difficult to change opinions. Btw I stumbled upon Rosecrans quite by accident. Had no knowledge about him aside from the accepted wisdom of him being a poor general. Without Lamer's ' book I never would have explored him. Without the Library of Congress - and others- near me I wouldn't have been able to consult older forces. Call it luck.

 

[Enoch L. Cade]

These are all topics I know little about. I will say 19th century Civil War history was very frank in terms of criticism of people especially the closer in time to the actual events something was written. As time goes by fewer people remember the events and the process of turning those events into culture is well underway. There are exceptions when someone is made into a martyr or hero shortly after their death. Lincoln is an example. All this shows the Importance of looking at older sources. Once an idea becomes accepted it can be difficult to change opinions. Btw I stumbled upon Rosecrans quite by accident. Had no knowledge about him aside from the accepted wisdom of him being a poor general. Without Lamer's ' book I never would have explored him. Without the Library of Congress - and others- near me I wouldn't have been able to consult older forces. Call it luck.

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.