Nathan Bedford Forrest
Posted 14 July 2008 - 12:06 PM
Posted 14 July 2008 - 02:14 PM
NO, not possible. Not done in the civil war. At Shiloh, troops not formed, organized, out of ammo, tired, hungary, leaders didn't know where their troops were. No orders issued to make an attack. Troops in camp, bedding down, not on the front line.
Posted 15 July 2008 - 04:11 PM
I agree about a night attack. Just not a realistic possibility. It's interesting that Forrest suggested it as an option though, along with retreat. It seems pretty clear that he understood what Buell's arrival meant, and that the entire situation had changed from the Confederates' perspective. It makes me wonder what Forrest might have done had he been in command of the army that night.
Something else that's odd about this though. When Forrest finally located Hardee, tells him what he's seen and says that he can't find Beauregard, Hardee just sends him back to keep an eye on things. That's it.
You know, if you think about it, that's just stunning. I mean it's just stunning. He'd just been told that not only was Grant not retreating, but Buell's army was on the scene and crossing the river. The only thing that could have been worse was hearing that Buell was crossing the river behind them. Other than that, it was the worst possible news they could have had that night.
And when Hardee hears it, he basically shurgs and sends Forrest back where he came from. Apparently he didn't even try to find and inform Beauregard. Are you kidding me?
I can't remember exactly where I read it, but maybe the best explanation I've seen for this is simply pure, complete exhaustion. Not just Hardee, but the entire Confederate army, officers included. Not only had they just endured the mental and physical strain of a vicious, day-long battle, but they did so after spending three awful days just trying to reach the Union army and get into position for an attack. The unending strain and fatigue may have started to affect their judgment to some extent. Maybe that helps explain Hardee's otherwise totally mystifying response to the news that Forrest gave him. Or maybe he felt that it was too late by then to really do anything about it.
Even so, the news that the enemy is being reinforced is something that the commanding general might be interested in hearing about. But so far as I know, Beauregard didn't learn about it until sometime the next day, after it had become self-evident.
Posted 17 July 2008 - 07:39 AM
Posted 17 July 2008 - 08:13 AM
I would concur people either like Forrest or they do not. Some segments like to malign him for Fort Pillow where he purportedly massacured Union troops that had surrendered or turned a deaf ear to those who were doing it if he actually did not participate. Since there is evidence to support both sides of this controversy I think the jury is still out on this one.
Sherman, although calling him "that devil Forrest" during the war made some comment after the war that he was one of the best military leaders the war produced on either side. That is certainly a mark of respect from someone who was in a position to know.
I think Forrest was an interesting and adept military leader. When you look at where he came from with little formal education and no military training at all he certainly put fear in the hearts of Union commanders in the west throughout most of the war. He was able to do things that no other military commander could with fewer men. He raised havoc with union forces and cost the United States millions of dollars in lost, damaged, burned supplies as the results of his raids behind enemy lines. In this politically correct world we live in we loose site of the realities of what life was like in America in the 1860's and what the pevailing attitudes of the times were for many Americans. We should judge Forrest in the light of the environment in which he lived in not in accordance with 21st Century morals or attitudes. He was no more so less perfect than any of the rest of us.
Posted 18 July 2008 - 05:27 PM
As far as Fort Pillow is concerned, I agree that there is conflicting evidence as to whether Forrest was directly to blame. But I think at the least he does bear some responsibility. The garrison at Fort Pillow was roughly half white and half black, and from what I remember reading about it, the majority of white soldiers were taken prisoner while most of the black soldiers were killed. I don't think that was a coincidence or the mere chances of war.
As for judging Forrest within the context of his times and not our own, I think that's very true. I'm not a big fan of political correctness either, although at times it does have its place. But living in a different era is not an automatic pass, for Forrest or anyone else. I understand that to some extent Forrest was the product of the world in which he was raised and lived. That's true for all of us. And I do think we have to try and understand people, and events, within that context, even though it isn't always very easy.
But I think that the study of history is not meant to simply be a dispassionate one. It's not merely about understanding something or someone within their own era. We also have to decide how we feel about it all. Or so it seems to me. Otherwise, what do we really learn from it?
For me, history is a constant balancing act between understanding and judgment. One that I don't always navigate successfully, and I'm sure I'm not alone. But that's the way it is to me. We want to try and understand what happened, and why it happened, or why someone acted the way that they did at a certain point in time. That, to me, is trying to place things in context.
But at the same time, we're going to pass judgment on what we think about these things. We're going to bring our own beliefs, experiences, and prejudices into the picture, whether we know it or not. And I don't think that's wrong. We have to decide what we think about something or someone, even if all we can decide is that we're not really sure just yet. I think it works that way with learning about Forrest, too.
Plus, there were people at that time who didn't care for some of the things he did, or for him personally, and others who seem to have admired him quite a bit. And in both cases they were judging him based on their own 19th Century values and not our modern-day versions. (Not all of which are completely different from each other.) Not everyone shared his attitudes or beliefs, even then, and even within his own section of the country.
Had I lived in his time and been brought up in his surroundings, I might very well have believed the same way Forrest believed about things, and supported the same causes he did. Maybe not - again, not everyone did - but it's very possible that I would have. That's the context of it for me, and I do try to understand that part of it. The 21st Century version of me thinks he was an impressive cavalry commander, but still can't come to admire him as a person. Maybe that speaks to me more than it does to him. And to some extent maybe that's the point. But it does make for a good debate.
Posted 19 July 2008 - 02:07 AM
Posted 19 July 2008 - 03:20 AM
Well, Forrest isn't one of my favorite people from the war. He was an excellent cavalry commander
NBF isn't one of my favorites either.
Forrest was more of a "mounted infantry" guy instead of cavalry. He had serious problems acting as a subordinate. And, IIRC, most of his success came when he had independent command.
IMHO, there is a lot of legend/hype chaff to discard when you study Forrest.
Posted 20 July 2008 - 03:14 AM
Sharon - on starting a discussion of favorite or non-favorite generals, sure, that would be fine. The Campfire forum is meant to be for general discussions, whether about Shiloh or not, so that would be a good spot for it. Or if everyone would like, we could have a discussion like that about generals involved in the Shiloh campaign, from Fort Henry to the fall of Corinth. Either way is fine. And I'm sure we're all big fans of John B Floyd or Gideon Pillow here.
Posted 20 July 2008 - 01:04 PM
Concerning Nathan Bedford Forrest, I will say that he is one of my favorites. After everything is said about him, he still remains a top level confederate leader. He was a determined leader, something the confederates lacked in many instances. He was innovative concerning battlefield tactics, very aggressive, used cavalry as well as mounted infantry tactics, horse artillery, and had an excellent understanding of the battlefield. His pluses far outweighted the minuses.
You already read (above) that Sherman referred to him as "that devil Forrest" but do you know that Grant also had a high regard for Forrest. Late in 1862, in northern Mississippi, when confederate cavalry was unleashed on his supply lines, he (Grant) immediately asked who was in command of the rebels. When told it was not Forrest, he ignored the rebel raiders and continued his movements.
A study of mine about confederate commanders in the west indicates that Forrest compiled the highest score of any rebel commander, Cleburne came in second. I will explain this study further if anyone is interested. I did this study because I was having trouble understanding who the better leaders were. The result was that it opened my eyes and allowed a better understanding of the leadership. Another result was that it allowed me to understand how good the mid-level officers were, Such as George Maney, Jones Withers, James R Chalmers, John Bowen, Patton Anderson. I appreciate much better what these and many others officers did and I enjoy reading about the battles much more than before with this better understanding of the rebel generals.
Say what you want, Forrest was good.
Posted 20 July 2008 - 01:18 PM
Posted 20 July 2008 - 06:07 PM
No disrespect intended here. I realize that criticizing Forrest is considered blasphemous in some circles.
Posted 20 July 2008 - 06:14 PM
A study of mine about confederate commanders in the west indicates that Forrest compiled the highest score of any rebel commander
Please explain your criteria. While this interests me, I'm gonna bet that your study is highly subjective.
Posted 21 July 2008 - 02:59 AM
Posted 21 July 2008 - 03:16 AM
Posted 21 July 2008 - 03:34 AM
Mike: What would you say about J S Mosby & his partisan rangers and J H Morgan. Stuart had many years to prefect his talents. The jury is still out on what his impact on the battle of Gettysburg was he was not effectively acting as Lee's eyes and ears because he was east of both armies trying to keep track of a captured Union wagon train & skirmishing with Union cavalry.
I would say that Mosby & Morgan were partisan/irregulars & not well-versed in cavalry tactics. Just because someone rides a horse doesn't make them cavalry.
Stuart was a target of the "Lost Cause" movement (Jubal Early & the boys) after the war & many of those myths have become part of the story. Re: JEB & Gettysburg, I suggest you read "Plenty of Blame to Go Around," by cavalry historians Eric Wittenberg & J. D. Petruzzi. It clears a lot of things up.
Posted 21 July 2008 - 03:35 AM
Posted 21 July 2008 - 04:05 AM
About cavalry raiders, John Hunt Morgan was effective as a raider but his career went down hill with an unfortunate ending. Some say that his decline started with his marriage. An interesting view but not a sustainable view. John S Mosby was very effective because of his leadership abilities and his organizational skills. He ranks high but was a raider type of leader. I don't consider Sheridan a cavalry officer but as a career officer who was able to lead troops of different branchs of the army. Concerning Custer, If they who dislike Forrest don't also dislike Custer, then something is missing in their evaluation procedures. True, Custer was aggressive but in a single minded manner. He made rash cavalry attacks at times. He was an opportunist, more interested in his own career, who used questionable battlefield tactics. I don't wish to discuss Cantrill who was not a military leader. Don't know enough about Hampton to judge and very little more about Stuart but will say both were above average. I have always thought Stuart was difficult to accept discipline and orders at times but, yes, not as much as Forrest.
Judge these leaders by their overall careers and not single events. Judge their relations with superiors and subordinates, ability to read a battlefield and the tactics used. Consider their care of their men, horses and supplies and differences between them will emerge. As I said before, Forrest will place very high when everything is said. A final note about Forrest, he lead by example from the start of the war and was still leading at the end of the war, he was sustainable and dependable. This last note will apply to Hampton as well. Please accept what I have written here not from one who idolizes Forrest but one who has always tried to evaluate fairly.
Posted 21 July 2008 - 06:34 AM
To me what made Forrest so great is because he didn't have the formal military training so he wasn't attempting to over evaluate and then resort to tactics learnt from a book.
If anyone wants to say my views are one sided when it comes to Forrest well go ahead, he does happen to be one of my favorite Generals.
I don't take anything away from what any of the others that have been mentioned have done, each had their own pros and cons. Even Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson contributed in their own ways. I know most everyone considers them nothing but outlaws, but if the south would have won it'd be the other way around, You'd hear of what a cutthroat Doc Jennison was and Jim Lane's redlegs were like.
Oops, guess I need to get off my soapbox, anyways whether you like Forrest or not it's hard to take away from his accomplishments. Heck even Marse Robert thought highly of him and never even met him.
Posted 21 July 2008 - 07:10 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users