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.
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.
I think the thing to say about Forrest is that he may have been the best battlefield tactician on either side.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Nathan Bedford Forrest was not a founder of the KKK.
Here is a PBS site on the matter:
Nathan Bedford Forrest and the KKK
(from link):
However:
(from link):
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.
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:
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.