A recent article in Military History implied that Nathan Bedford Forrest was ‘da man’ in the war and basically won every battle he was in with the rare exceptions of when being totally outnumbered towards the end (like at Selma).
Someone said that his tactics and fighting style were unusually well suited to the CSA, such as raiding enemy supply line, avoiding direct battle except with the odds in his favor, melting away before attacks , forces divided into smaller, more mobile units.
Forrest was an all-around commander of genius who performed as well
in conventional battle as in irregular battle. See Bryce’s Crossroads
on that score.
Whenever his name is mentioned, however, it is appriopriate to note
that he was a slavetrader by profession before the war, that he probably
instigated massacre of Balck union troops during the war, and that he
was a founder of the KKK after the war.
Forrest was very good at what he had to do. Confederate generals were masters of getting the most out of very limited resources. But he had his limitations.
One of these was his lack of education. Another was his rather prickly personality, I cannot recall any general officer more often shot in the face by his own officers.
I suppose you could call his Fort Pillow command a brigade (about 2,000 if memory serves). He called enlisted men by their first names, a handy trick for a captain. Could a man like Forrest have handled the logistical complexities that faced Grant and Sherman? Could his force of personality have held together something like the Army of Northern Virginia?
So we can put Forrest in the box marked “The Right Man in the Right Place at the Right Time.” He did very well, there is no arguing that, but it is hard to imagine him being anything more than a talented amateur in any other circumstance.
How did lack of education reduce his ability as a general?
His own officers? which ones? And recall that Stonewall Jackson had no personal touch either.
He was already a colonel at Ft Donelson earlier, where the hapless Gideon Pillow was originally
2nd in command. Pillow and CIC John Floyd disgracefully abandoned their in extremis army, leaving
it to Gen. Simon Bolivar Buckner to be party to US Grants immortal “No terms other than your
immediate and unconditional surrender can be accepted. I propose to move upon your works
immediately.” Forrest had been directed to surrender with the rest of the garrison, but refused,
and led his command to safety in a daring breakout.
Two months later, I think as a general, he was the last man to leave the field at Shiloh, taking
with him a Yankee bullet in the back for the trouble.
I expect most of his campaigns as commander were run on a shoestring, and there is no reason
to doubt he could have kept his forces in food and ammo.
If he had been a winner, yes: if there is one thing beloved by soldiers it is a winning general.
Forrest was probably a professional his first day in combat, and edication means relatively little
when it comes to military genius. Cromwell had no military training, and he was a great battlefield
commander. Neihter did Leon Trotsky, the Red Star of the russian Civil War. There are sure to be
many others I do not know of, or cannot think of at the moment.
Forgive me, I was speaking of Forrest’s attack on Fort Pillow. He managed to pull it off, so that is good, but he operated with no written plan, no real subordination of units and roughly ran his command from his saddle. All very well for a small command, but it seems doubtful he could have commanded a larger force.
He as a poor writer, a most likely a poor reader, he certainly had a mistrust of officers who were schooled. No big thing in a small command, but how could he have handled dozens of telegrams a day from senior and subordinate commands?
It is hard to argue with the man’s obvious battlefield successes. He did very well where and when he was. But I suspect he would not have done so well with larger formations over a wider area.
You will remember at least one of his junior officers shot him in the face. Forrest was then forced to kill the young man with a pocket knife. Nate was a bit on the touchy side.
Actually, in a discussion of his capabilities as a military commander, his slavetrading and his participation in the Klan are irrelevant. That he instigated the massacre of troops at Fort Pillow is the subject of some controversy. That the actions of his troops appear to be consistent with his personal attitudes toward blacks is noted, but it is also noted that there is no record of him actually ordering the killing of prisoners.
At the final charge over the earthworks, Forrest stayed (personally) back from the fighting. Nothing wrong with that as he was a general officer. But Forrest was famous for always being right at the front. (It was claimed he killed more people in person-to-person combat than anyone else in the ACW.)
At the final push for Fort Pillow, his staff asked if they might ask why he was well back from the action. “No, you may not ask,” he replied.
Conclusion, he knew what was going to happen and did not take steps to prevent it. Or perhaps he had no idea what the troops yelling “black flag” meant. If that is the case, we have to blame his lack of education.
FWIW Forest was the only general that US Grant feared. he thought little of Lee, was of the opinion that Jackson was a waste of space, respected Joe Johnston, but he feared Forest. This is from a man who generally ran through opposition like a knife through hot butter.
It’s also (if you actually look at real history and not popular myth) hard to avoid the fact that he either already was or became a very decent man after the war. He did join the nascent KKK, but at the time it wasn’t wild and violent as it later became. He also helped keep it away from trouble, and advocated racial harmony. Though he no doubt remained imbued with racism, it’s clear he accepted that black Americans would play an equal role in the nation moving forward, and wanted that to be accomplished without further trouble.
he died not long after, at the relatively young age (even then) of 56.
Funny you should say that – Stonewall Jackson was shot by his own men as well (albeit accidentally).
Leaving aside the unfortunate typo, I’ll bring up the fact that aristocratic snobbery played a significant role in Confederate leadership. While they were prepared to enjoy the military advantages Forrest’s self-taught generalship brought for their own side, respectable Confederates believed a general should be a well-born gentleman, preferably with land, and be capable of flowery speech and sophisticated manners. As much as they defended slavery, Forrest’s pre-war profession as slave trader was a bit too “working-class” – and too much a reminder of unpleasant realities – for their comfort, nor did his execrable spelling and crude language suit their beau ideal of a military hero.
So, while lack of formal education did not particularly inhibit Forrest’s campaigns, it did limit his upward mobility in the Confederate hierarchy, which indirectly imposed a limit on how much he could direct the Confederate war effort.
Also, in response to the OP, author Shelby Foote once said he believed the US Civil War brought out only two authentic geniuses – Abraham Lincoln and Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Yeah I’d second this. There is a tendency in military history to separate the “admirable” aspects of war (bravery, skill, camaraderie, and self-sacrifice) from the terrible aspects (brutality, murder, cold-bloodiness, oppression, racial conflict, etc, etc).
Forrest is one of the many examples that shows you really can’t, and being an amazing example of the former doesn’t exclude the latter.
