Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46

Thread: Nathan Bedford Forrest

  1. #1

    Default Nathan Bedford Forrest

    I just finished reading the book The Campaigns Of General Nathan Bedford Forrest And Of Forrest's Cavalry
    http://www.amazon.com/Campaigns-Gene.../dp/030680719X

    what a amazing general. The book contains all the info on his military operations throughout the whole war. It goes some into his early life but of the 700 or so pages it is 95% military actions. It was written [ this is updated version reprint] in 1868 using battle action reports from both confederate and federal officers as well as interviewing soldiers and generals on both sides and entirely checked and supported by Forrest himself who provided his reports and constant fact checking. Some of the more interesting finds and quotes in book I found stood out.


    -He had no schooling or military training
    -He enlisted as 40 year old private, by end of war he was a lieutenant general
    “ Historians consider him to be one of the greatest Calvary commanders of all time”
    -A superhuman warrior personally killed 30 men in battle --No high ranking general killed as many men in combat since medieval period
    -He was attacked by 4 men in Calvary fight while mounted he shot one but received wounds to head and arm 3 more federals come into fight shooting and stabbing at him he uses his pistol to block attacks but his hammer is hacked away on pistol so cannot fire, his horse gets shot and wounded. His escape is blocked on all sides by thick woods on sides and federal troops forward and a wagon across road in retreat, he jumps over wagon with horse to retreat, 30 paces down road attacked again by saber blocks with new pistol and shoots and kills attacker.-
    -Multiple times captured numbers larger than his own command and had to let prisoners go because he did not have enough men to control them.
    -At shiloh his 15 year old son and 2 other soldiers his age captured 15 federals
    -Survived wounds that would kill most
    -Used captured infantry drums to make his Calvary appear more numerous to enemy. [Thinking infantry was in area.]
    - Always ready to charge his escort [elite soldiers around 70 men] in middle of fight to turn tide of battle or stave off disaster.
    -Kept enemy uncertain of his moments
    -Used some of his older men to act as local citizens and give false info to upcoming federals on the whereabouts of Forrest .
    --when federals tried to trap him, he would be able to get across bridges/streams thought unpassabel
    - A case of federal Calvary not attacking when they found out Calvary was under Forrest command [ though they had larger force]
    -Often would do the mission when no volunteer would in his command [ cross frozen rivers, dangerous scouting missions etc]
    -A captured Forrest solider convinced the federal general of a confederate force that was not there and caused federals force to retreat [though larger than Forrest]
    -Often blocked retreat of larger enemy force with much needed men even when outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1.
    -Had many horses shot from under him[ guess of 20] -one charge received 5 bullet holes to saddle.-another he was scouting ground wanted good info got so close had 2 horse shot under him before he felt had enough info.
    -when viewing his lines made his 4,500 look like over 10,000 to union commander during surrender negotiations.
    -Had artillery brought up road in circles to appear like he had more than he did during surrender negotiations
    -He had scouts wear captured federal uniforms to gather info and captured 50 soldiers [ who thought them federals soldiers]
    --Forrest outran retreating federals following a rout found himself surrounded by 100 federals and was shot multiple times, his horse mortally wounded- he used a revolver cleared path and escaped from a hail of bullets.
    -Often had to release most of his prisoners as he had to many to control and bring with him.--Once had prisoners help move artillery wagons through rough roads to than be set free.
    ---Many soldiers deserted from Joe Johnston army wanting to instead fight for Forrest
    - A negro helped confederate Calvary with info on federal Calvary that led to capture of federal Calvary.
    -A union officer saved his life by yelling his name telling him to get back out of harms way of union ambush [former captive of Forrest's who was released]
    - Did lose a few battles but never a fair fight and always because outnumber 3-4 to 1 and directions not followed or intercepted courier.
    -In march 1845 was attacked by 4 citizens was shot, but severely wounded all and drove them off [later the 4 were arrested]
    -Treated slaves well and always bought whole families
    -6'2 broad shoulders full chest muscular limbs
    - Was a sates rights democrat, did not want union to dissolve so long as states had rights
    -Friend who knew him from before war said he looked unrecognizable in battle [ face eyes expressions looked like war Indian they said]
    -Caring of his men
    -Great at scouting/ambushing
    -Some say part of his success was luck, I thought so at first but when it kept happening I found it to be his amazing timing of troops sent and arriving at correct time.
    -The only real downfall would be that perhaps he trusted militia to much.



    Battle results

    Some of his main tactics in battle were

    “Get their first with the most”
    Active defensive
    Sudden assaults on isolated positions
    Scout and have good info of enemy
    Kept enemy uncertain of his movements
    Swift heavy blows
    Calvary charge


    -In one battle charged a force 2x size up hill with artillery, he captured the guns took 75 prisoners caused 50 causalities retook 60 captured confederates and supplies. After battle was done He had 15 bullet holes in cloths and his horse fell dead after battle with 7 bullet wounds.[ later that day would have horse hit with solid shot from cannon die under him]
    -Attack a depot with 300 untried troops, results were 400 prisoners 1,000 horses 15 wagons 600,000 rounds ammo 100,000 rations cloths etc $500,000 worth overall.
    -with 1/3 the enemy force battle of tishomingo creek enemy force 3,300 Calvary and 5,400 infantry - Forrest had only 3,200 men he drove federal force 58 miles captured 19 guns 200 wagons 30 ambulances ammunition other materials 2,000 prisoners 1,900 killed complete destruction/disorganization of force [ only about 1,000 men from union made it back by foot]confederates fatigued from long travel before battle losses low as 140 killed 500 wounded.
    -One raid with 1,800 in command they captured 150 federals, killed 25, wounded another 50, captured 200 horses, a few wagons and 2 artillery, tore up railroad and captured rail cars.. He rearmed his entire force [ brigade] with better captured weapons than when they went into raid . Lost 3 killed 5 wounded.
    -A raid in Tennessee caused 3,500 federal casualties 8 artillery captured 400 horses and mules 100 wagons 100 cattle 3,000 arms stores destroyed rail 6 bridges 2 locomotives 50 fright cars captured/destroyed 50 block houses gained 1,000 men [ recruited from area deserters from Joe Johnson army looking for Forrest] at a loss of 300, returned stronger than left.
    -On a raid in West Tennessee a federal newspaper wrote “Forrest with less than 4,000 men has moved right through the 96th army corps has passed within 9 miles of Memphis carried off 100 wagons, 100 beef cattle 3,000 conscripts [ men who joined his ranks from population/stranglers etc] innumerable stores, tore up railroad track, cut telephone wire, burned and sacked towns ran over picket lines, with a single derringer pistol and all in the face of 10,000 men [ 7,500 more sent from Kentucky].-Known for his deep raids in enemy territory
    -He would charge fast at slight chance to cause panic – one example 150 confederates charged 350 federals while crossing river caused rout and captured 70 soldiers
    -In a month long campaign destroyed rail, 2,500 federals killed or prisoners and came back stronger and better equpied than he left.
    -Attacked with 1,800 men- captured 2,200 not including killed wounded and lost only 30 men 150 wounded.
    -Another battle the Federal losses were 500 prisoners 10 killed [ 230 soon after]16 wagons 3 ambulances Forrest lost only 1 killed 2 wounded
    -In one action he burned 4 bridges captured 145 federals plus 15-20 killed without a single man killed or wounded in.
    -During 4-5 small skirmishes lost 200 men, but killed 350 captured 2,000 prisoners and captured artillery and wagon
    -Union set a ambush, but Forrest charged faster than they thought captured 30 killed/wounded 20 lost only 2 killed
    -Charged a lined enemy Calvary with superior force and only lost 1 killed and killed 20 and took 50 prisoners.



    Great quotes from book

    “wait a moment major, I 'll bring one from the Yankees yonder” returning little while later “ here's the horse I promised you, major, and a Yankee to boot” [ captured federal officer as well]
    Private argyle powell to major Phil Allin upon losing his horse before a charge



    In pursuit of routed federals confederate officer yells “Get out of our country, you worthless rascals”
    Federal turns his head and says “Faith and by Jasus an't it that same we're trying to do just as fast as we can”


    Others describing him

    His operations are more reminiscent of a 20th century panzer leader, such as Heinz Guderian or Erwin Rommel, than of any commander of his age.A gifted military genius, Perhaps the most feared general in American history, “that Devil Forrest” was the prophet of mobile warfare. His campaigns were (allegedly) studied by German proponents of the blitzkrieg and compare favorably to those employed by Rommel and Guderian. Though often considered a “cavalry leader” (he was probably the finest in American history), his task forces were actually well-balanced mobile arms teams of cavalry, mounted infantry, and horse artillery. personally killing with his own hands some 30 union soldiers (and losing 29 horses in the process!). Forrest was dubbed “The Wizard of the Saddle,” but he was in truth a wizard of modern warfare.



    When asked who the best general of the war was Lee said Forrest.


    “Follow Forrest to the death if it costs 10,000 lives and breaks the Treasury. There will never be peace in Tennessee till Forrest is dead.”
    General*William T. Sherman*of the Union Army. As quoted in*May I Quote You, General Forrest?*by Randall Bedwell.
    Last edited by twc01; January 23, 2016 at 12:00 PM.

  2. #2
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,800

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Traitor defending a slave holding society dedicated to that end. And great he inspired Gudarian and or Rommel - good references... Lee also seems like a poor one since he you know kinda lost.
    Last edited by conon394; January 24, 2016 at 03:02 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Have Forrest recon Gettysburg.
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

  4. #4
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    NBF was a real estate speculator and seems to have been cruel and racist. Didn't he order the massacre of black soldiers at Fort Pillow? There's a strong rumour he founded and was the animating spirit of the first vile incarnation of the KKK. A dishonourable and evil man, perhaps a skilled raider in a period of strife but no one worth remembering except as an example of inhuman behaviour.

    Given the low level of professional skill displayed in the ACW a ruthless and determined amateur could perform as a raider, however I doubt he would have made much of an impression in the serious campaigns in the East.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  5. #5
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    I actually like Mosby better than Forrest.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  6. #6

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    NBF was a real estate speculator and seems to have been cruel and racist. Didn't he order the massacre of black soldiers at Fort Pillow? There's a strong rumour he founded and was the animating spirit of the first vile incarnation of the KKK. A dishonourable and evil man, perhaps a skilled raider in a period of strife but no one worth remembering except as an example of inhuman behaviour.

    Given the low level of professional skill displayed in the ACW a ruthless and determined amateur could perform as a raider, however I doubt he would have made much of an impression in the serious campaigns in the East.
    He worked with blacks after the war to unite them. He was invited to speak and did in front of blacks after the war with the efforts to unite the races. He told his 40 slaves they would be free after the war either way, and if they chose to stay and fight with him they could or go. 38 of the 40 stayed [pretty sure those are numbers without looking it up]. He did not order the massacre, he was at division level by that time and when he and other officers did enter the fort after its capture worked to stop the firing. There is allot more in the book on this issue. No he did not start the modern racists redneck KKK.

    I do have a question for you. lets assume he was big racist started the kkk and ordered fort pillow massacre. Why would that stop us from wanting to learn of a military genius? especially if you love Calvary such as i do.


    I would say what he did to grant and sherman, their supplies and troops, he could have done so and more to any federal general in the east.





    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    I actually like Mosby better than Forrest.
    Like? or better general?
    Last edited by twc01; January 30, 2016 at 05:04 AM.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    I mentioned this in another thread, but when the KKK was first founded it was intended to be a fraternal organization for former Confederate soldiers. To my knowledge Forrest had ZERO to do with the founding. In fact, I believe the names of the founders are not even known. I also have read that Forrest didn't want anything to do with the organization when it turned violent towards blacks. I suspect by the wording that he was courted to join and lead it, but I would also guess he said no. What the OP had said about his views is what I have read about him.

    He is considered one of the better Confederate generals. TBH, this isn't saying much. I do not find generals mostly reliant on Napoleonic tactics when the weaponry demanded a different approach that "good." Anyway, some of the more popular choices are Jackson, Sheridan (Union) and Longstreet. Some would add in AS Johnson (early death) and even Beauregard (out of favor with Davis).

  8. #8
    Senator
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    He worked with blacks after the war to unite them. He was invited to speak and did in front of blacks after the war with the efforts to unite the races.
    Unite them for what purpose? This is a euphemism with no meaning.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Quote Originally Posted by O'Hea View Post
    Unite them for what purpose? This is a euphemism with no meaning.
    Unite them as american citizens to coexist in peace.

  10. #10
    Henry of Grosmont's Avatar Clockwork Angel
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Xanadu
    Posts
    5,078

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Hehehe. Another thread to glorify Confederates. By the same poster. His reasons are purely academic, I'm sure of that...

  11. #11
    Gatsby's Avatar Punctual Romantic
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    København, DK
    Posts
    2,906

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Give me Thomas Jackson any day of the week.
    You'll have more fun at a Glasgow stabbing than an Edinburgh wedding.

    Under the patronage of the mighty Dante von Hespburg

  12. #12
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    ... No he did not start the modern racists redneck KKK.
    Oh he started the old tolerant sophisticated KKK? Balderdash, he was a by reputation a cruel torturing murdering bastard.

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    I do have a question for you. lets assume he was big racist started the kkk and ordered fort pillow massacre. Why would that stop us from wanting to learn of a military genius? especially if you love Calvary such as i do.
    Well I don't see him as a military genius. He may have had some success as a vandal but he was part of a Confederate military that was swept from the Western theatre despite enjoying superior numbers at most engagements.

    There's a tendency to claim ACW generals as titans and military geniuses but given the US military was principally a colonial force engaged in COIN ops against nomads and subsistence farmers and no tradition of mass warfare up to that time these claims sound hollow. North America has a tradition of irregular warfare and you may claim NBF as an exponent but given the collapse of the Confederate position in the western theatre you'd have to classify him as an annoyance at best.

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    ...I would say what he did to grant and sherman, their supplies and troops, he could have done so and more to any federal general in the east...
    In the confines of the eastern theatre operating in narrow valleys with numerous river crossing against the US forces sitting on their supply bases I'd say he'd be even less effective than his galloping about the west. If this is a shot at JEB Stuart you'd want to recall Stuart's performance in repeated successful battles. His absence from Gettysburg (practically his only failure) seems to have cost Lee victory there.

    By comparison all NBF's vaunted raiding did not save Vicksburg or Atlanta. The Fort Pillow Massacre is either an example of his beastly inhumanity or his lack of control of his men: either is damning.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  13. #13

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Oh he started the old tolerant sophisticated KKK? Balderdash, he was a by reputation a cruel torturing murdering bastard.



    Well I don't see him as a military genius. He may have had some success as a vandal but he was part of a Confederate military that was swept from the Western theatre despite enjoying superior numbers at most engagements.


    There's a tendency to claim ACW generals as titans and military geniuses but given the US military was principally a colonial force engaged in COIN ops against nomads and subsistence farmers and no tradition of mass warfare up to that time these claims sound hollow. North America has a tradition of irregular warfare and you may claim NBF as an exponent but given the collapse of the Confederate position in the western theatre you'd have to classify him as an annoyance at best.



    In the confines of the eastern theatre operating in narrow valleys with numerous river crossing against the US forces sitting on their supply bases I'd say he'd be even less effective than his galloping about the west. If this is a shot at JEB Stuart you'd want to recall Stuart's performance in repeated successful battles. His absence from Gettysburg (practically his only failure) seems to have cost Lee victory there.

    By comparison all NBF's vaunted raiding did not save Vicksburg or Atlanta. The Fort Pillow Massacre is either an example of his beastly inhumanity or his lack of control of his men: either is damning.

    The KKK we think of today based on racism and evolution started in the 1920's. Any group forrest may have been involved with was at first political group, not over race that the modern kkk centered around. I dont feel a need to defend either KKK group, nor pretend forest was a perfect man, he was however a amazing general.


    You said he was a "by reputation a cruel torturing murdering bastard.". Just curious how he achieves such high status.



    I would say his opponents and what he achieved during the war would give him more credit than you would. While i dont care to get in a discussion on it hear, i would question this statement "despite enjoying superior numbers at most engagements.". I would also say the loss of the csa was not due to forrest, but many factors.



    I can agree with the last part, the west was better grounds for the calvery. A big mistake the csa made was to not allow forrest to go after shermans supply in the Atlanta campaign as he and other generals called for. He was in Tenn when Vicksburg campaign was going on and remember he started as a private. His reputation rose very fast, but did take time for them to notice they had a genius in forrest. As Lee stated, the biggest mistake the csa made was not utilizing forrest more. So this is issue with high command not forrest IMO.


    Fort pillow Has many aspects to it, I would suggest reading the book. The union soldiers committed crimes against civilians in the area, many of them were in Forrest command. Forrest did control the situation after he entered with other officers. It does not take long for soldiers to do some damage when enraged in battle. He was not on the front lines, but if i remember right a few miles back when the confederates first entered the fort and the killings started soon after because of fast union rout.
    Last edited by twc01; February 01, 2016 at 04:41 PM.

  14. #14
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    The KKK we think of today based on racism and evolution started in the 1920's. Any group forrest may have been involved with was at first political group, not over race that the modern kkk centered around.
    The KKK was in many ways a continuation of the slave patrols that preceded the abolition of that infamous institution. Free whites in many parts of the south were impressed into policing the human possessions of the slave owning elite, and free blacks were required to carry identification. T

    he immediately post war KKK continued the tradition of harassing free blacks and although it was a secretive organisation it emerges from the earliest period as one dedicated to killing and repressing black people and their defenders. Describing it as a "veterans social club" is like calling the Spanish Inquisition a religious order.

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    I dont feel a need to defend either KKK group, nor pretend forest was a perfect man, he was however a amazing general.
    I debate that. Its a point of contention in the historiography of the American Civil War. One school wants to see gifted geniuses in the leadership (especially for the South), the other side sees an extremely patchy performance where armies typically lost when they were not on their own turf (even Lee) aside from the well organised Grant and Sherman, who showed typical Yankee talent for logistics and problem solving (although tactically they were as blunt as a hammer). The clear strategic genius (as much political as military) of Lincoln is I think undisputed.

    Forrest is one of many gadabout leaders with strong personalities and little or no military experience. In the 19th century the practice of arms was a profession, not the field for gifted amateurs. Forrest was an amateur, gifted perhaps but not really a soldier.

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    You said he was a "by reputation a cruel torturing murdering bastard.". Just curious how he achieves such high status.
    As the KKK was a secretive as well as evil organisation his leadership is rumoured rather than proved. The cruelty and murderousness of his men was proved at Fort pillow although you seem to feel he was not in control there. There is mixed evidence, although there's a letter from one of his men in the immediate aftermath of the slaughter that attributes to Forrest the responsibility for ordering his men to kill surrendering blacks. Forrest himself seems to have changed his story-the sort of behaviour you'd expect from a real estate man.

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    I would say his opponents and what he achieved during the war would give him more credit than you would. While i dont care to get in a discussion on it hear, i would question this statement "despite enjoying superior numbers at most engagements.". I would also say the loss of the csa was not due to forrest, but many factors.
    I'd agree but being a leader in the losing theatre is no recommendation for his genius.

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    I can agree with the last part, the west was better grounds for the calvery. A big mistake the csa made was to not allow forrest to go after shermans supply in the Atlanta campaign as he and other generals called for. He was in Tenn when Vicksburg campaign was going on and remember he started as a private. His reputation rose very fast, but did take time for them to notice they had a genius in forrest. As Lee stated, the biggest mistake the csa made was not utilizing forrest more. So this is issue with high command not forrest IMO.
    My point was the East was worse terrain for cavalry with straightened battlefields: the west was made for wild gallopers.

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    Fort pillow Has many aspects to it, I would suggest reading the book. The union soldiers committed crimes against civilians in the area, many of them were in Forrest command. Forrest did control the situation after he entered with other officers. It does not take long for soldiers to do some damage when enraged in battle. He was not on the front lines, but if i remember right a few miles back when the confederates first entered the fort and the killings started soon after because of fast union rout.
    There are mixed accounts: some state the Union forces did not surrender hence the killing, others state Forrest was ordering the killing of surrendering blacks. nothing about the matter redounds to his credit, and the most likely explanation is he was a violent racist murderer.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  15. #15

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    The KKK was in many ways a continuation of the slave patrols that preceded the abolition of that infamous institution. Free whites in many parts of the south were impressed into policing the human possessions of the slave owning elite, and free blacks were required to carry identification. T

    he immediately post war KKK continued the tradition of harassing free blacks and although it was a secretive organisation it emerges from the earliest period as one dedicated to killing and repressing black people and their defenders. Describing it as a "veterans social club" is like calling the Spanish Inquisition a religious order.



    I debate that. Its a point of contention in the historiography of the American Civil War. One school wants to see gifted geniuses in the leadership (especially for the South), the other side sees an extremely patchy performance where armies typically lost when they were not on their own turf (even Lee) aside from the well organised Grant and Sherman, who showed typical Yankee talent for logistics and problem solving (although tactically they were as blunt as a hammer). The clear strategic genius (as much political as military) of Lincoln is I think undisputed.

    Forrest is one of many gadabout leaders with strong personalities and little or no military experience. In the 19th century the practice of arms was a profession, not the field for gifted amateurs. Forrest was an amateur, gifted perhaps but not really a soldier.



    As the KKK was a secretive as well as evil organisation his leadership is rumoured rather than proved. The cruelty and murderousness of his men was proved at Fort pillow although you seem to feel he was not in control there. There is mixed evidence, although there's a letter from one of his men in the immediate aftermath of the slaughter that attributes to Forrest the responsibility for ordering his men to kill surrendering blacks. Forrest himself seems to have changed his story-the sort of behaviour you'd expect from a real estate man.



    I'd agree but being a leader in the losing theatre is no recommendation for his genius.



    My point was the East was worse terrain for cavalry with straightened battlefields: the west was made for wild gallopers.



    There are mixed accounts: some state the Union forces did not surrender hence the killing, others state Forrest was ordering the killing of surrendering blacks. nothing about the matter redounds to his credit, and the most likely explanation is he was a violent racist murderer.


    Last post for me on anything not related to forrest military career.

    The original KKK was a political group that faught against reconstruction and republican voters, most blacks were republicans and so were targeted often. They did horrible things I agree. Forrest may have been involved for a short time yet not commiting any crimes that anyone knows of.




    Well all you have really said is claimed the generals of the civil war were not great. I disagree but i think that would be another topic. there were great and horrid generals. forrest clearly among the great [read book].


    So to claim he is so bad, you site his men did what men of the north did at various times and in every war. You also mention how contradictory reports from both sides tell of confusion at fort pillow. i would suggest reading the book or court cases, claiming is not proving. If you wish to show him so horrible, that needs to be shown.


    no but what he did is.



    agreed, east not as good for Calvary.



    "he most likely explanation is he was a violent racist murderer."


    Right, the man who had blacks fight in his units, have blacks invite him to help unite the races after the war, the man who had hundreds of weeping blacks at his funeral, yet hes a ""he most likely explanation is he was a violent racist murderer."".


    I think you mistaken because you assume hes guilty without all the evidence [read book or court cases] than draw a conclusion.




    But i will not mention anything on this anymore. because lets assume he the grand wizard of the kkk and evil and racists, still a military genius. Though if we start with your assumption that civil war generals were no good, than he only appears a genius. You also say generals were only good on the home front and not atcaking, yet forrest almost was always attacking and made multiple raids in the north.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Is this a discussion of Nathan Bedford Forrest the man or Nathan Bedford Forrest the general? If the latter, then why is there a discussion about his post war activities?

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    Last post for me on anything not related to forrest military career.
    The original KKK was a political group that faught against reconstruction and republican voters, most blacks were republicans and so were targeted often. They did horrible things I agree. Forrest may have been involved for a short time yet not commiting any crimes that anyone knows of.
    To be clear, NB Forrest attempted to disband the KKK when it had turned violent. My understanding is that it started as a fraternal organization for former soldiers of the Confederacy, then turn anti- republican, then turned violent.

    Again, if we are talking only about his military career what does this have to do with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    Well all you have really said is claimed the generals of the civil war were not great. I disagree but i think that would be another topic. there were great and horrid generals. forrest clearly among the great [read book].
    I consider great to be Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Frederick the Great, Hannibal, Alexander the Great,.... Then there are good.... Let;s take it easy on the superlatives..

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    So to claim he is so bad, you site his men did what men of the north did at various times and in every war. You also mention how contradictory reports from both sides tell of confusion at fort pillow. i would suggest reading the book or court cases, claiming is not proving. If you wish to show him so horrible, that needs to be shown.

    I think you mistaken because you assume hes guilty without all the evidence [read book or court cases] than draw a conclusion.
    Perhaps it would be more usefult o share the contents of the book in regards to the disputed events instead of telling people to read the book.

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    ... Calvary.
    I think you mean. Cavalry

  17. #17
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    Is this a discussion of Nathan Bedford Forrest the man or Nathan Bedford Forrest the general? If the latter, then why is there a discussion about his post war activities?
    OP mentions his positive relationships with black people, but does not mention the infamous Fort Pillow massacre. His rumoured connection with the KKK is relevant in discussing his probable racist identity.


    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    To be clear, NB Forrest attempted to disband the KKK when it had turned violent. My understanding is that it started as a fraternal organization for former soldiers of the Confederacy, then turn anti- republican, then turned violent.

    Again, if we are talking only about his military career what does this have to do with it.
    I thought the KKK mk.1 was shrouded in mystery and had to be stamped out by what amounted to COIN ops? NBF's role is only hinted at so I must concede your opinions are at least as plausible as mine, but I can't imagine the murder of Fort Pillow baulking at a little hate crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    I consider great to be Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Frederick the Great, Hannibal, Alexander the Great,.... Then there are good.... Let;s take it easy on the superlatives..
    That's a fair point, NBF was a raider in losing theatre, not a war winning superman. In my limited knowledge I have found Stuart and Sheridan to be more soldierly cavalrymen, and Forrest to be an effective raider excelling other largely unqualified men.

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    Perhaps it would be more usefult o share the contents of the book in regards to the disputed events instead of telling people to read the book.
    Given its a 19th century work of an ex-soldier, and in no way a scholarly work, why would we bother to read it? Its like reading Chauvin on Napoleon.

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    I think you mean. Cavalry
    I would love to criticise him for typos but I make them too. I will however note his uncritical attitude toward an unqualified and most likely biased source does not do him credit.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  18. #18

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    OP mentions his positive relationships with black people,....
    He selected interesting parts from the book. I can only two statements related to "black people."

    Quote Originally Posted by twc01 View Post
    - A negro helped confederate Calvary with info on federal Calvary that led to capture of federal Calvary.
    -Treated slaves well and always bought whole familie
    s


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Given its a 19th century work of an ex-soldier, and in no way a scholarly work, why would we bother to read it? Its like reading Chauvin on Napoleon.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    but does not mention the infamous Fort Pillow massacre.
    I will however note his uncritical attitude toward an unqualified and most likely biased source does not do him credit.
    I do not see a problem with who wrote the book. It was written by a general in which he had full access to his papers and Forrest himself. A journalist was also involved.
    by General Thomas Jordan (West Pointer and chief of staff to Generals Beauregard, Albert Sidney Johnston, and Braxton Bragg) and the professional journalist J. P. Pryor. Forrest himself gave them complete access to his military papers, spent many hours in interviews with them, and closely supervised their writing.
    All historical sources are biased. When my students do a source analysis they have to go a little more detail than that to score our of the bottom markband. Anyway, the reviews indicate a straightforward writing of his campaign and there are zero indication that it is a over glorification of his campaigns. Why do you assume it is a glorification of Forrest? I see this book as similar to Caesar's Commentaries. It is also is biased and is actually written by Caesar himself. Unlike this book and others like it, you cannot get the views of enemies. If you are doing research on Forrest this should be on your must read book.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    His rumoured connection with the KKK is relevant in discussing his probable racist identity./....I thought the KKK mk.1 was shrouded in mystery and had to be stamped out by what amounted to COIN ops? NBF's role is only hinted at so I must concede your opinions are at least as plausible as mine, but I can't imagine.
    His connections are not rumored. He joined, led and attempted to disband it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    the murder of Fort Pillow baulking at a little hate crime.
    Hate crime,...maybe, but a war crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    That's a fair point, NBF was a raider in losing theatre, not a war winning superman. In my limited knowledge I have found Stuart and Sheridan to be more soldierly cavalrymen, and Forrest to be an effective raider excelling other largely unqualified men.
    My comments could extend to any solider of the ACW. Some were better than others, but none were great. A superlative I reserve for the "great" commanders of history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I would love to criticise him for typos but I make them too.
    I honestly was not criticizing him.
    Last edited by Ybbon; February 04, 2016 at 10:46 PM. Reason: do not use navy text, it is reserved for moderation

  19. #19
    Henry of Grosmont's Avatar Clockwork Angel
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Xanadu
    Posts
    5,078

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I would love to criticise him for typos but I make them too. I will however note his uncritical attitude toward an unqualified and most likely biased source does not do him credit.
    There's another thread just like this. Shouldn't revisionist history be in a different section?

    Also, sorry mate. Need to spread reputation before I can rep you again

  20. #20

    Default Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest

    Cyclops just wondering why your stance has changed on civil war generals when a few months ago you said this

    "It is a testament to the great tactical skills of Lee and other Southern generals, and the fighting spirit imparted by fighting mostly on "home soil" that the desruction of the South was not completed in a few months."
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...war&highlight=






    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I debate that. Its a point of contention in the historiography of the American Civil War. One school wants to see gifted geniuses in the leadership (especially for the South), the other side sees an extremely patchy performance where armies typically lost when they were not on their own turf (even Lee) aside from the well organised Grant and Sherman, who showed typical Yankee talent for logistics and problem solving (although tactically they were as blunt as a hammer). The clear strategic genius (as much political as military) of Lincoln is I think undisputed.

    So I was thinking on civil war generals and Forrest as a general while at work, when i was suppose to be working. A few things.


    Was Lincoln a military genius?

    I am surprised you say he is a military genius and downgrade the generals of the civil war. If you read this book here


    Jacksons valley campaign great campaign series
    http://www.amazon.com/Jacksons-Valle.../dp/0938289403


    It shows how Lincoln micro manged the eastern theater at this time and upset both McClellan and McDowell plans's to take men to set a trap for jackson in the valley. Than Jackson the overrated civil war general outmaneuvered the military genius of Lincolns trap and used it against the union. This the book said was the last time the genius politician [maybe best in usa ever] micro manged war efforts. He did approve of plans etc but not created himself, as Jackson showed him he was not a genius. Also if Lincoln was a genius, why could he not beat those overrated civil war generals of the south all those years in the east, at times with twice the size of the army. he approved plans that failed miserably. Why did it take grant after years to come over and beat lee?. Who ever ranked Lincoln as a great civil war general?. Besides yourself. i would also suggest he in part ruined the peninsula campaign and the norths early war effort. McClellan tacking the blame that belong to Lincoln and northern newspapers.

    See here

    The Peninsula campaign great campaign series
    http://www.amazon.com/Peninsula-Camp.../dp/0938289098


    ultimate civil war series 150th anniversary
    http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Civil...FQFFAX3NR8QE50


    Forest a great general


    Just read my op, forrest did not have a 2 to 1 advantage in men often the opposite. Yet he attacked invaded and won against such odds over and over, yet you say Lincoln is the genius.


    Civil war generals


    Think of Winfeild scott. He was considers by some the greatest captain of his age. The duke of wellington called him "the greatest living solider". Yet he played just a small role in the civil war and was not considered one of the greatest generals. Than when scott said a young lee was "the very best soldier I ever saw in the field" . That should say something as lee was not the great general yet, that he became during the civil war. Before the civil war america won easily against mexico. Napoleon the third invaded mexico in the 60's and was forced to retreat after a few loses.


    also jacksons valley campaign and general Forrest are still both studied in moderns military schools.
    Last edited by twc01; February 02, 2016 at 05:02 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •