# Was Nathan Bedford Forest really da shizznit in the war? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2011, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098 "2011-11-06T21:05:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/21 "2011-11-07T19:50:56Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > 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, . . . Actually, it is not at all difficult to separate the various aspects of a person’s character, particularly when the topic under discussion is an explicit examination of only one of those characteristics. One need only limit one’s comments to that characteristic. Had the topic been “Was nathan Bedford Forrest an admirable person?”, you would be correct. It is not and you are not. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/22 "2011-11-07T19:54:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Actually, it is not at all difficult to separate the various aspects of a person’s character, particularly when the topic under discussion is an explicit examination of only one of those characteristics. One need only limit one’s comments to that characteristic. Had the topic been “Was nathan Bedford Forrest an admirable person?”, you would be correct. It is not and you are not. Errr the OP described him as “da man” that implies a certain amount of admiration. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/23 "2011-11-08T03:13:19Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Errr the OP described him as “da man” that implies a certain amount of admiration. And, again, admiration for his military abilities does not necessarily translate to admiration for him as a person. The phrase used was “‘da man’ in the war.” I admire Benedict Arnold’s battlefield leadership, but I do not hold the man in high esteem. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/24 "2011-11-08T05:53:59Z")
I think the thing to say about Forrest is that he may have been the best battlefield tactician on either side. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/25 "2011-11-08T14:25:32Z")
I’m not sure I would say he was a great tactician. He did understand how to assault rapidly with everything he had - the great advantage of a small, fast force. It as really his stratgic sense which impressed me. He was quite capable of dodging Union cavalry and hitting supply lines within hundreds of miles of the front lines. When enemy forces were poorly-led, he was able to quickly overhwhelm them or trick them. Quite possibly a military genius, but definitely not as tactically able as Lee. He was not the commander Grant was, however, and possibly not as good as Stonewall Jackson or Sherman. His skillset was limited, simply by lack of opportunity and practice. I’m sure he’d have at a minimum been a capable and feisty brigadier. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/26 "2011-11-08T14:57:58Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I’m not sure I would say he was a great tactician. He did understand how to assault rapidly with everything he had - the great advantage of a small, fast force. It as really his stratgic sense which impressed me. I agree. And although it’s not the whole story, a large part of what made Forrest so effective was his aggression. In the “fog of war,” many men – too many – are governed by their uncertainties and fears. “Not messing up” is a powerful disincentive. Where others saw deterring difficulties, Forrest was determined to get results, pressing on farther and faster and more ambitiously. While that _can_ lead to rashness, over-extension, and/or heavy casualties, it can often lead to winning bigger results than anyone expected. When pushing his men, a commander has to judge how far is _too_ far, and how far is _not far enough_. Although he pushed them hard and far, Forrest usually displayed excellent working judgment of where this line lay. So I’d say his strategic sense was good, but his aggression and his judgment of complex, rapidly-changing circumstances were first-rate. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/27 "2011-11-08T15:09:20Z")
Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, it sounds like you fellows are talking about his tactical skills rather than strategic thinking. Or maybe I am using the words wrong, not being from a military background. But I understand tactics to mean the short-term decisions made in the course of a battle. (In Forrest’s case such things as “hitting them on the end” or dividing his forces at opportune times, or using trickery to deceive the opponent.) Strategy, as I understand it, is more “big picture” thinking – the large-scale, long-term plan for a campaign or war. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/28 "2011-11-08T15:42:14Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, it sounds like you fellows are talking about his tactical skills rather than strategic thinking. Or maybe I am using the words wrong, not being from a military background. But I understand tactics to mean the short-term decisions made in the course of a battle. (In Forrest’s case such things as “hitting them on the end” or dividing his forces at opportune times, or using trickery to deceive the opponent.) Strategy, as I understand it, is more “big picture” thinking – the large-scale, long-term plan for a campaign or war. Yes, and that’s why we’re using it that way. Forrest was a raider, and did immense damage to the Union cause. He was able to target supply lines and slow or stop campaigns. He was also a courageous fighter, but his tactics were comparitively simple: hit hard and fast. But he wasn’t known as a cunning tactician such as Lee. He wasn’t able to devise and execute complex battle plans to confuse his enemies. Instead, he simply aimed to be upon them before they realized he was there - a strategic concern - and win the battle before they could get their act together. ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/29 "2011-11-08T15:46:43Z")
I have often been under the same impression as **Spoke** , so if someone could clarify that point for me I would appreciate it. Also, given the smaller size of his force, and it’s no doubt effective means of “eating from the field”, I am curious to know if there is any opinion on his logistical abilities in larger scale. That, I have long felt, is more key to long term victory anyways. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/30 "2011-11-08T15:57:07Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 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. IMO it is appropriate when discussing one feature of a person’s life to mention any other outstandingly notable feature. I myself am always grateful for inclusion of such not necessarily relevant details. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/31 "2011-11-08T16:09:38Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I’m not sure I would say he was a great tactician. He did understand how to assault rapidly with everything he had - the great advantage of a small, fast force. It as really his stratgic sense which impressed me. He was quite capable of dodging Union cavalry and hitting supply lines within hundreds of miles of the front lines. When enemy forces were poorly-led, he was able to quickly overhwhelm them or trick them. Quite possibly a military genius, but definitely not as tactically able as Lee. > > He was not the commander Grant was, however, and possibly not as good as Stonewall Jackson or Sherman. His skillset was limited, simply by lack of opportunity and practice. I’m sure he’d have at a minimum been a capable and feisty brigadier. Without looking it up I beleve Forrest was a Brigadier General by the time of Shiloh (4/62), and if not was promoted not long afterward. I am also quite sure he ended the war with two stars. As for his tactical ability, see Brice’s Crossroads, where, outnumbered maybe 2:1 he split his command after assaulting the enemy, and sent the two sections in opposite directions to complete the rout, an almost unique maneuver. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/32 "2011-11-08T16:15:46Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > 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. Although Grant was without a doubt a great general, the metaphor you employ very seriously misrepresents the caliber of his opposition. See especially the months-long Vickburg and later Overland/Wilderness/Petersburg campaigns. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/33 "2011-11-08T16:17:15Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > But he wasn’t known as a cunning tactician such as Lee. [Yes, I’m pretty sure he was.](http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest.aspx) > [@](#): > > Forrest soon gained a reputation as a military genius. In April 1862 his men fought at Shiloh, Mississippi, where Forrest was seriously wounded. After he recovered, Forrest and his cavalrymen fought at Murfreesboro, Tennessee. His surprise attack captured a thousand Union soldiers, destroyed supplies valued at a million dollars, and wrecked a portion of the railroad. For the next year and a half Forrest conducted raids from west Tennessee and moved as far as the Ohio River. He hit Union supply lines and at one point severely impeded Grant’s drive to Vicksburg, Mississippi. In the spring of 1863 **Forrest displayed his tactical genius** by tricking a Union commander into surrendering his fifteen hundred soldiers to Forrest’s battalion of five hundred… > > …Following the war, **many military historians recognized Forrest as the best tactician to fight for the Confederacy.** ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/34 "2011-11-08T16:35:07Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > 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. Not to be snarky, but can you provide some cites for this? Grant certainly knew of Forrest, and had reason to respect his abilities, as Forrest had given him a lot of trouble during the Vicksburg campaign. But Stonewall Jackson was already dead before Grant became the Union’s top general, so he’d had little direct expeience with Jackson and little reason to belittle Jackson’s abilities. As for Lee, Grant’s memoris (to me, at least) contradict your statement. When Grant describes meeting Lee at Appomattox, it’s pretty clear that Grant held Lee in high esteem, as Lee was something of a legend in the Army even when Grant was just a young officer himself. Grant remembered Lee very well, and was still a BIT in awe of him. Hence, Grant was surprised (and a bit skeptical) when Lee claimed to remember Grant. (Grant didn’t think it likely Lee would remember a young flunky who’d served with him briefly such a long time ago). ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/35 "2011-11-08T19:56:05Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Whenever his name is mentioned, however, it is appriopriate to note that he…was a founder of the KKK after the war. Nathan Bedford Forrest was not a founder of the KKK. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/36 "2011-11-08T20:24:46Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > Nathan Bedford Forrest was not a founder of the KKK. Here is a PBS site on the matter: [Nathan Bedford Forrest and the KKK](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/palmsprings_200801A41.html) (from link): > [@](#): > > So closely is Forrest’s name associated with the Klan, in fact, that he is sometimes incorrectly referred to as its founder… However: (from link): > [@](#): > > Forrest, learning of the KKK, expressed a desire to join. The eminent recruit was elected grand wizard, the Klan’s highest official, and tried to bring the rapidly multiplying dens under a centralized authority — his own. This was in 1867, Grand Wizard was the highest-ranking KKK member, and Forrest was the first KKK Grand Wizard. IMO that is close enough, and correction is unnecessary. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/37 "2011-11-08T20:26:40Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > [Yes, I’m pretty sure he was.](http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest.aspx) Except that in the incident described, he displayed no tactics at all. In fact, he did no fighting whatsoever… ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/38 "2011-11-08T20:53:27Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Except that in the incident described, he displayed no tactics at all. In fact, he did no fighting whatsoever… Tactical skill may be displayed without personal role in the fighting, and most highest ranking USCW generals illustrated that fact on several occasions. Not that Forrest avoided combat: I have mentioned earlier his wound at Shiloh, and I believe he had 20-30 horses shot out from under him. He was also reputed to have killed 30 or so enemy in personal combat, perhaps including one who he held as a shield, using one arm (Forrest was 6’6" tall and very strong). Finally, from the link in my last post: > [@](#): > > He was the only man on either side to rise from the rank of private to that of general during the four-year conflict. Robert E. Lee and William Tecumseh Sherman called him the most remarkable man, and finest soldier, produced by the war. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/39 "2011-11-08T21:02:34Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Tactical skill may be displayed without personal role in the fighting, and most > highest ranking USCW generals illustrated that fact on several occasions. Yes, but I define tactics as the art of manuevering in order to defeat a specific enemy force in combat. One can be good at tactics without being particularly brave, though it helps. One can be bad at tactics but still acheive success. One can employ simple tactics in a fashion which suits the situation, which is what Forrest often did. In that situation, Forrest and his men didn’t fight. They did win, and I have no problem lauding the cunning involved. But what he did was not solve a tactical problem, but rather trick a dimwitted commander with a fake show of force. I consider that a strategic action, similar to other deceptions at Corinth and the Penninsula campaign. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/40 "2011-11-08T21:28:49Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Yes, but I define tactics as the art of manuevering in order to defeat a specific enemy force in combat. One can be good at tactics without being particularly brave, though it helps. One can be bad at tactics but still acheive success. One can employ simple tactics in a fashion which suits the situation, which is what Forrest often did. > > In that situation, Forrest and his men didn’t fight. They did win, and I have no problem lauding the cunning involved. But what he did was not solve a tactical problem, but rather trick a dimwitted commander with a fake show of force. I consider that a strategic action, similar to other deceptions at Corinth and the Penninsula campaign. I define tactics as _how_ you fight, and strategy was _when and where_ you fight. US WW2 _Grand_ strategy consisted of two words: “Germany first”. US WW2 tactics in the Pacific usually consisted of bombardment and amphibious frontal assault. Strategy consisted of bypassing as many enemy strong points as possible (e.g. Truk and Taiwan). By my definition any form of deception is tactical; at best deception eliminates the need for combat. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098.md?page=3)