Conference smurf::civil_war

    I have no idea whether Davis said that.  (It seems a little out of
    character, but...)
    
    Whether it would have mattered would depend on "when".  By the time
    Forrest was a lieutenant general, and eligible to be seriously
    considered for the top slot in the west, the Confederacy was in deep
    trouble: Vicksburg gone, manpower and arms low, etc.  Forrest might
    have been able to delay defeat somewhat, but he would still have been
    facing a group of able Federal commanders with the same set of
    subordinates that Johnston, etc., were stuck with.  :^)
    
    For Forrest to get command early enough to do any good, he would have
    had to be "jumped" over several senior officers - who might either have
    become his reluctant subordinates, or left (at their own request or
    someone else's ;^} ).  I don't remember offhand enough of the details
    of the war in the west to pick the "optimum" time for putting Forrest
    in charge.  I wonder, though, if he would have been effective as an
    army or theater commander, and thus working through other generals, as
    he was as a regimental and division commander.
    
    MikeR
    

    
    	That would be a tough one to call... But, you be the judge, from
    what I can remember reading about him, I'll write a brief history of
    the man and then you decide.
    	He was regarded as one of the most brilliant generals on either
    side, Forrest had a storybook life that took him from the lowest level
    of society to the heights of Confederate leadership.
    	He had little formal education, having to assume responsibility of
    his family while still in his teens when his father died, he worked as
    a blacksmith and farmer in Mississippi. He prospered, becoming a 
    planter while also dealing in horses and slaves.
    	I believe he was living in Tennessee when the war broke out. He
    soon recruited and equipped a cavarly battalion at his own expense. He
    was with the forces at Fort Donelson in February of 1862 and rather
    than surrender he led his cavalry and some infantry out through Union
    lines, going on to participate in several battles as a cavalry
    commander.
    	He was most famous for his dashing raids in Tennessee during July
    of 1862 and in ( I think ) December 1862 - January 1863, when he
    destroyed bridges and railroads, captured many prisoners and stores and
    generally disrupted the federal forces and plans in that theater of
    operations.
    	He was seriously wounded at Shiloh in April 1862 and in June 1863
    was shot by a disgruntled subordinate - whom he promptly killed.
    Interesting way to settle a dispute among officers.
    	After the Chickamauga campaign in August - September 1863, Forrest
    quarreled with his superior, General Bragg, ( who didn't? ) and 
    Davis resolved the dispute by promoting Forrest to major general and
    gave him an independent command in northern Mississippi and western
    Tennessee.
    	In April 1864 Forrest was involved in the most controversial action
    in his career. He was in charge of the Confederate troops that had
    surrounded Fort Pillow, Tennessee. When the Federal commander refused
    to surrender, Forrest's troops moved in and took the fort.
    	The North charged that Forrest had allowed his men to kill the
    Federal troops as they were surrendering, ( most of the dead were black
    soldiers ), Southerners contend that the losses were incurred because
    they refused to surrender. Although not all historians agree, the more
    scholarly studies conclude that it was a massacre.
    	One of Forrest's major victories was at Brice's Cross Roads in
    Mississippi, where, against a force over twice the size of his troops,
    he drove the Federal troops into a confused retreat and captured large
    amounts of their equipment.
    	Forrest's last action came at Selma, Alabama where he was defeated
    in April 1865, but by then the war was virtually lost anyway, and he
    surrendered in May.
    	Based on this brief history, in my opinion I don't believe that
    Forrest had the capability to handle the top slot in the west. It would
    have been interesting scenario, but, with his wild background and the
    way he led troops, I believe he wouldn't have had the patience, so to
    say, to command such a large force over such a grand scale or area.
    	I do believe that the Confederacy didn't realize the significance
    of the western theater till it was to late.
    	Just my $.02 worth......
    
    					The Alabama Slammer

    Didn't he have something on the number of 30 horses shot out from under
    him in battle?  Also, didn't he end up winning roughly about the same
    mumber of personal hand-to-hand combats too?  Not many generals above
    brigadier personally rode at the head of a charge, let alone survive
    so many.  It is an interesting question though; just as interesting as
    if Stonewall had survived to accept the same command.  Apparently he
    was under consideration for command of the AoT before he died.
    
    Ziff

    
    I remember a phrase from Ken Burns' ACW film; the character that
    portrays Sherman's voice blurts out with something like:  "Bedford
    Forrest is worth five divisions to the South!"  I remember another
    section of the film where Sherman is damning the Hell out of Bedford
    but I can't remember the quote.  
    
    I figure that coming from old William Tecumseh Sherman, and not once,
    but twice, says a lot about Bedford Forrest.
    
    

    
    Comments on previous notes:
    
    First of all, in justice to President Davis, he spoke privately
    not "publicly" as I said. I do not know who quoted him.
    
    The general conclusion seems to be that Forrest would not have 
    been s suitable choice, and with this I concur. Reasons:
    
    - He was a rough, unlettered man. I have read the memoirs of 
      Arthur Manigault who led a division in the AOT, and he
      clearly looks down on Forrest, though respecting him as a
      fighting man. It would have been difficult to promote him
      over proud aristocratic southerners like Manigault.
    
    - In "How the North won", Hathaway and Archer found that promotion
      to high command on both sides correlated highly with (1) professional 
      education at West Point and (2) (surprisingly) service in the Mexican War.
      Forrest had neither, so that it was too late by the time he had
      proved his ability. 
    
    - I feel he was at his best as an independent role harrying the
      opposition rather than as an army commander. I feel Forrest
      might have lacked strategic vision. While Sherman cussed him 
      to hell, he was happy enough to have him raiding in Missippi
      and West Tennessee, rather than harrying his own precarious 
      logistics. In this light, Brice's Cross Roads was a strategic
      defeat for the South as it diverted resources away from the crucial
      Atlanta area.
    
    But yet ..... In the west the Confederacy had Forrest, the best 
    cavalryman of the war, and in Pat Cleburne it had one of the best
    leaders of infantry. Neither had a West Point education, neither
    fought in the Mexican War. One cannot but feel that the South 
    undervalued some of its western leaders when you see men like
    Bragg and Hood in top commands.
    
    What is the prevading opinion of Foote's asserton that the war
    produced two geniuses: Abraham Lincoln and Bedford Forrest?
    
    Toby

    The problem with Forrest is that he was notoriously precipitate.  He
    made snap judgments and acted on them, often without proper
    intelligence or support.  He was also terribly flamboyant, as we all
    know from the stories about the horses shot from under him and so on.
    
    That was all right for a cavalry commander whose business was primarily
    to harry and baffle the enemy as would a swarm of gnats - it's not all
    right for a supreme commander.  IMHO, Forrest would have been a *very*
    poor choice; I think he'd have spent the Confederate forces in
    too-hasty tactical maneuvers without taking the time to develop the
    strategy behind his actions.
    
    He was a headstrong individual - he'd have had half his generals at his
    throat in months.  Look at how much trouble his commanders had keeping
    him on an even slightly tightened rein.
    
    And he'd have been out there on the field in the front line, *leading*
    the troops instead of behind the lines where his valuable skills would
    be safer from enemy fire.  He'd have been dead before 1863 if he'd been
    supreme commander.
    
    -dick

    
                       <<< Note 63.5 by MACNAS::TJOYCE >>>
                             -< My own �0.2 worth >-

>        - In "How the North won", Hathaway and Archer found that promotion
>      to high command on both sides correlated highly with (1) professional 
>   education at West Point and (2) (surprisingly) service in the Mexican War.
    
        Why is this surprising? If you are looking for a doctor to perform
        an operation, you might look for someone who has been to medical
        school and done that type of operation before. For a general, pick
        someone with a military education and combat experience. There is
        also some cause/effect reversal here: people who wanted to be
        generals would have tried to go to West Point and to serve in
        Mexico, and would have been first in line when the Civil War
        started.
    
>    The general conclusion seems to be that Forrest would not have 
>    been s suitable choice, and with this I concur. Reasons:
 
        Me too. The tactics that won him his reputation were not those
        taught at West Point, which may have given him an advantage over
        conventionally trained officers in his type of warfare. But there 
        is no reason to think that Forrest would excel at grand strategy 
        or military administration and logistics which would inevitably 
        make up much of the job of an Army commander. There were many 
        Corps commanders who failed at Army command, and Forrest never 
        was really more than a division commander in spite of the inflated 
        rank the C.S.A. handed him along with other generals.
       
>    What is the prevading opinion of Foote's asserton that the war
>    produced two geniuses: Abraham Lincoln and Bedford Forrest?
    
 	I think that this is based on "romanticism" rather than careful
        analysis. Wouldn't you say that in his own way, John Erickson ??,
        inventor of the Monitor, was also a genius, and can't you name
        others who were also good in a particular role? Forrest was
        outstanding in one role, but if that makes him a genius, there
        were a lot more.
    
        I place Lincoln in a higher category. For someone who was
        essentially a country lawyer to become President at one of the
        most turbulent times in our history and turn in a generally
        good performance might be considered one of the great surprises
        of history. Lincoln was elected on ideological grounds not his
        past career, which was generally lackluster at best. I would liken
        it to Pat Buchanan being elected this year, and then becoming a
        favorite of future historians.
                        

    
    To call Lincoln a "country lawyer" demeans the man's career previous
    to becoming President. Of course, it is the Lincoln legend, but in
    fact Lincoln was a somewhat more complex person.
    
    - He was a powerful figure in Illinois state politics, and had
      become a national figure through the Lincoln-Douglas debates
      during the 1858 senatorial contest.
    
    - Some of his clients were large corporations, like the railways
      or the McCormack Reaper Co.
    
    - He had received widespread publicity in Eastern newspapers during
      a lecture tour in 1859. This drew to him the support of states
      like Pennsylvania and New York, though they had their "favourite
      sons".
    
    - He was one of the founders of the Republican party, and a powerful
      figure in it since 1855. He was no outsider.
    
    The electoral situation in 1860 was unique - the two party system
    had vanished to all intents and purposes - the Democrats were
    hopelessy split, the Whigs were long vanished as a force. It was
    four corner election: Republicans, two factions of Democrats,
    and the Constitutional Unionists (ex-Whigs). The Republicans were
    in an advantageous position, they only had to pick a candidate
    who would not alienate any of the key states in the North: they
    chose Lincoln, and events subsequently showed they chose well.
    
    I don't know if any other election can compare. There have not
    been many four-way contests in American history. So Pat Buchanan
    is not a good comparison. Jimmy Carter might be a better
    comparison: a more regional figure than a national figure, yet
    powerful enough in the party to attract support, and with the
    right combination of characteristics needed to unseat an 
    incumbent party. Poor Carter was no Lincoln, however.
    
    Woodrow Wilson in 1912 would also be a good comparison, he
    won because the Republicans split and Teddy Roosevelt ran as
    the "Bull Moose" candidate.
    
    Toby

    I seem to recall Foote mentioning Davis' comment in  K.B.'s The C.W.
    
    						Don

    I just finished reading R.S. Henry's book on Forrest:  
    "First With the Most."
    
    This has the best account I've read of most of Forrest's 
    military career, including Fort Pillow.  This was only a 
    massacre in the same sense as Picket's charge, Cold Harbor, 
    or other bloody engagements.
    
    As for overall command of the West, Forrest may have done 
    quite well.  Forrest's actions were always well planned and 
    his troops well equipped.  The significance of this is shown 
    in comparing with Hood's poor attempts to get his army moving 
    after Atlanta (and so missed his window of opportunity).
    At no point in his career did Forrest fail to measure up to 
    the demands of his increasing.  Based on performance, there 
    is no reason to think he would not have continued to prosper 
    with further advancement.
    
    Strategic view was also mentioned.  It was these same superior 
    officers, apparently with acceptable strategic vision, that 
    over-ruled Forrest's actions against Sherman's supply operations 
    in Tennessee.  By the time Forrest was given permission to leave 
    middle Tennessee, Sherman no longer depended upon these supplies.
    Forrest had a broad grip of the war and of what needed doing.
    
    Moving further with these touchy Southern Commanders who might 
    not have followed orders well from Forrest.  Hmmm, I remember 
    almost every commander griping about the poor performance of 
    his underlings (and of these same underlings trying to undercut 
    their commander via dispatches directly to Richmond, etc.).
    So, yes Forrest may have had problems.....for a while.  Forrest 
    was not a man to put up with these problems for long, though, 
    and likely would have had a more unified command than we've 
    come to know.
    
    Otto