Forrest Was Forrest a Bad Commander?

[David Moore]

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



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.

Amazing you know I'm irrational. I commented on this thread because someone asked about Rosecrans - something I know a lot about. I've earned that statement having studied him for over 30 years. Then the Grantists came in and the result was the usual decay. This is not a serious site when it comes to Grant. People using fake names and fake pictures and making statements backed at best by sources found for free on the internet are hardly serious historians. Sorry if that offends you.

 

[Belfoured]

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.

And those are categorically different from the "books" that were being discussed. In fact, as I suggested in my post, more recent books have the benefit of greater access to primary sources than the authors of older books did. As to what is available online and not, as you know it varies widely between institutions and the types of documents they have chosen to digitalize. The same point about people "wr[iting] things that they never put out publicly" can apply to their private correspondence.

 

[Belfoured]

Amazing you know I'm irrational. I commented on this thread because someone asked about Rosecrans - something I know a lot about. I've earned that statement having studied him for over 30 years. Then the Grantists came in and the result was the usual decay. This is not a serious site when it comes to Grant. People using fake names and fake pictures and making statements backed at best by sources found for free on the internet are hardly serious historians. Sorry if that offends you.

You have an inordinate fascination with the use of handles in an internet forum. There are a great many highly qualified posters in these forums who use "fake names" for any number of valid reasons. This isn't some 4th grade recess yard. By the way, only an incompetent would fail to use "sources found for free on the internet", such as those made available by the LOC (for example only, McClellan's papers) and by several other depositories.

 

[Belfoured]

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.

You're correct - it shouldn't. Just as those who have found and posted about errors in a book that is critical of Grant - say, Varney's - should not be labeled "Grantists".

 

[Belfoured]

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.

And as an aside that's actually a good rule for the use of anybody's memoirs/recollections. One need not have an established proclivity for dramatic "embellishment" like Chamberlain or Gordon to fall within this guideline.

 

[Choatecav]

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

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.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

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.

I think Forrest & Hannibal would have admired each other ... and shared a cup of coffee.

 

[leftyhunter]

Never a truer word spoken. Hood was good as a regimental and brigade commander -- as long as his orders were to attack (and one of my people was with him in the 5th Texas) -- but as an army commander, I think his performance at Atlanta and Spring Hill/Franklin/Nashville could qualify as the most disastrous of the war by either side/any commander. At least Pope and Hooker brought their armies out of Virginia. I do realize Hood was recovering from two amputations, and possibly medicating with an opiate. But all the more reason he should have never been given the commanding general role. (Another great example, I think, of Jeff Davis' incredibly poor judgment in military affairs).

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

 

[leftyhunter]

Never a truer word spoken. Hood was good as a regimental and brigade commander -- as long as his orders were to attack (and one of my people was with him in the 5th Texas) -- but as an army commander, I think his performance at Atlanta and Spring Hill/Franklin/Nashville could qualify as the most disastrous of the war by either side/any commander. At least Pope and Hooker brought their armies out of Virginia. I do realize Hood was recovering from two amputations, and possibly medicating with an opiate. But all the more reason he should have never been given the commanding general role. (Another great example, I think, of Jeff Davis' incredibly poor judgment in military affairs).

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

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.

Yes and no. The ex Confederates absolutely won the peace has they had a modified legal slavery system called convict leasing for a good eighty years post ACW. Former Confederates served as governors , senators and ambassadors post ACW. Share cropping wasn't a huge advancement over slavery.
Forrest actually shortly before his death publicly kissed an Afro- American woman during his Maypole Speech and was in favor of full voting rights for Afro- Americans. That's not to argue the Forrest was a Saint who walked on water indeed he tried to make a living post war leasing prisoners for convict leasing.
Leftyhunter

 

[David Moore]

You're correct - it shouldn't. Just as those who have found and posted about errors in a book that is critical of Grant - say, Varney's - should not be labeled "Grantists".

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

 

[JerryD]

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.

Did anyone in this thread say he was a bad commander? I dont recall seeing any. When I asked for a clarification I meant who, specifically, you think was making south hater comments. Can you name who you think that was?

As for his involvement in the Klan and Fort Pillow, its a fact he was a leader in the Klan and even his supporters admit he handled Fort Pillow badly. Speaking the truth does not make one a south hater.

 

[David Moore]

You have an inordinate fascination with the use of handles in an internet forum. There are a great many highly qualified posters in these forums who use "fake names" for any number of valid reasons. This isn't some 4th grade recess yard. By the way, only an incompetent would fail to use "sources found for free on the internet", such as those made available by the LOC (for example only, McClellan's papers) and by several other depositories.

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

 

[David Moore]

And those are categorically different from the "books" that were being discussed. In fact, as I suggested in my post, more recent books have the benefit of greater access to primary sources than the authors of older books did. As to what is available online and not, as you know it varies widely between institutions and the types of documents they have chosen to digitalize. The same point about people "wr[iting] things that they never put out publicly" can apply to their private correspondence.

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.

 

[breckod]

Did anyone in this thread say he was a bad commander? I dont recall seeing any. When I asked for a clarification I meant who, specifically, you think was making south hater comments. Can you name who you think that was?

As for his involvement in the Klan and Fort Pillow, its a fact he was a leader in the Klan and even his supporters admit he handled Fort Pillow badly. Speaking the truth does not make one a south hater.

Impressed with your patience in responding to this, honestly. The buzzword barrage and petty grievances on display just make me look at it as fundamentally not serious.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

about my book

Mr. Moore, for those of us that have never heard of you ... or your book ... can you explain
what your book is about ?

While I'm sure you may have already explained, I'm not going back through 12 pages
of comments.

That's an honest question.
And not an attempt to create more debate on this forum.

Thank you.

 

[David Moore]

Mr. Moore, for those of us that have never heard of you ... or your book ... can you explain
what your book is about ?

While I'm sure you may have already explained, I'm not going back through 12 pages
of comments.

That's an honest question.
And not an attempt to create more debate on this forum.

Thank you.

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.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

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.

Thank you once again !

I'm sure your work is on Amazon, and I'm tempted to order your book.

I'll be the first to admit that I know more about Forrest than Rosecrans.
But I've also known that General William S. Rosecrans was always a major player during the War.

I look forward to learning more about General Rosecrans.

But back to thread ... overall Forrest was never a bad commander.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

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.

Thought the timing of Forrest's rises in rank during the war did not necessarily indicate confidence by Richmond in his abilities for leadership of mounted troops.

Forrest was appointed as a B-G of cavalry on 21 July, '62, then rose to the rank of M-G almost eighteen months later, on 4 Dec., '63. During 1864, he received three separate 'Thanks of Congress' for meritorious service in the field, but no immediate promotion ensued. Following his effective handling of rearguard actions covering Hood's retreat from the disaster at Nashville, it was not until 22 Jan., '65, that Beauregard finally recommended that Forrest be made commander-in-chief of cavalry in the District of Mississippi, East Louisiana and West Tennessee (within the Department of Alabama, Mississippi and East Louisiana under Richard Taylor), which was promptly approved by Confederate authorities on Jan. 24. Forrest, however, was not formally appointed as a L-G until Feb. 28. But thought his promotion to L-G near the end of the war was virtually by default and was inconsequential , without any notable successes being recorded in his last brief campaign. During March and April '65, Forrest led the lopsided defense in Alabama to oppose 'Wilson's Union Cavalry Raid' (where each Federal trooper carried the 7 –shot Spencer repeating rifle), which culminated in the rout of Forrest's force at Selma. In this final campaign, Forrest commanded a much smaller force of inferior quality soldiers, comprised mainly of conscripts who were old men and boys.

Suspect that the long delay in Forrest's promotion to L-G until near the finish of the war, might have largely had something to do with the influence of Bragg, who always viewed Forrest as a non-professional (with no formal military training) cavalry fighter with limited capabilities for high command. He considered Forrest's combat worth no more than as a mere partisan. (At least twice during the war, Bragg transferred large portions of Forrest's own raised cavalry command over to Joe Wheeler, a Bragg sycophant – once in the Kentucky Campaign and also in the Knoxville Campaign).

Could interpret these delays in promotions for Forrest to mean that Richmond thought that he was not cut out for regular (or irregular) cavalry high command, say at L-G level. (Thought too, there was really nothing in his wartime combat record to suggest otherwise).

 

[Stone in the wall]

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.

Give the man some credit. Forrest didn't have too enlist at all, as in Tennessee significant planters were exempt from service. But he did. Enlisted to defend his home and family from the northern invasion. How or why he made Lt Colonel from private has no bearing on being promoted to Lt General by wars end with little formal and no military education on top of that.

 

[breckod]

Give the man some credit. Forrest didn't have too enlist at all, as in Tennessee significant planters were exempt from service. But he did. Enlisted to defend his home and family from the northern invasion. How or why he made Lt Colonel from private has no bearing on being promoted to Lt General by wars end with little formal and no military education on top of that.

Great, so you're dropping the following claim?

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

Or are you claiming the details and facts don't matter? Odd thing to say on a history forum.