I won’t say there’ no truth in that, but that’s not the dicitonary definition for certain.
Dictionary Definition: “the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.”
Well, that’s an intersting view. I wouldn’t think the great military thinkers, from Sun Tzu to Eisenhower, would agree.
Corrections are always necessary here. We are fighting ignorance! 
I know he was a foul traitor, but he did the patriotic thing in the end, so he isn’t as bad as the rest of the SoL terrorists.
smiling bandit, I’m not sure you are defining “strategy” and “tactics” in the way they are usually understood in the military.
To my way of thinking, “strategy” comprises the grand plans for achieving military objectives. “Tactics” are the (often ad hoc) battlefield maneuvers used in pursuing the objectives set by strategy.
As I understand the terms, Forrest’s deception (which involved movement of troops to make it appear as though he had more men than he really did) was very much a tactical move, dreamed up ad hoc in response to battlefield conditions. It was precisely the sort of creative response to circumstances on the ground that earned Forrest a reputation as a tactical genius.
This sounds suspiciously like “how” one fights to me!
I would think otherwise.
OK.
Not OK, unless you were a Redcoat!!!
Arnold not only fled to Redcoat lines after his treachery was discovered,
he took a field command with them, and performed very well.
“SoL”? What is that?
“Sons of Liberty,” I’m guessing.
Ah so, thanks.
I do not think that organization was guilty of terrorism in any reasonable sense
of the term, any isolated few excesses not fitting the defintion.
Me too. Not being an American, I don’t know anything about this man, so some general comments about him are helpful (although of course, they shouldn’t derail the thread).
Really? That’s pretty much all they did. The tarring and feathering, the burning down of loyalist homes, the assaults on people who didn’t agree to non-importation. Terrorism was the raison d’etere of the Sons.
the sound of you being whooshed;)
Yeah, I was going to make a serious point about how both Forest and Arnold were skilled but immoral enemies of what later became the modern United States of America, but I thought the whooshing opportunity was too great to pass up.
As for my real views on the subject, I come from the UK, so I have a less than romantic view of the war of 1775. I believe neither the secessionists nor the tories were absolutely right nor absolutely wrong. I believe the upper levels of the secessionists were fanning the anger generated by the genuine greavances of the colonial population for the elite’s ignoble ends but that doesn’t mean Benedict Arnold didn’t betray his duty to the men under him. He did the right thing not being a pawn of France and the elite, but he should have just left his letter and defected, instead he risked the freedom and liberty of the misinformed men and boys who had trusted him.
sorry for the threadjack
Yes, really.
Neither side was guilty of widespread atrocity, i.e. terror, at any time during
the revolutionary period. The recent Hollywood production depicting such by
Cornwallis’ forces is bullshit, and so are like charges against SOL, including yours.
Whatever else it might be, terrorism is a threat or an act of life-taking physical
violence, and in two pages of googling I have not been able to locate a single episode
in which any SOL target was killed prewar. Once war began it was a different story
with irregular operations resulting in death on both sides, inevitably, as in all war.
SOL factions did instigate riots, but injury was rare and property damage was paltry
compared for example to the NYC draft riots 100 years later.
As for tar and feathering, it was too trivial an act to be considered. Per Wiki there
is no known case of a person dying from being tarred and feathered in this period,
and The Master Himself did a report on the subject:
Cecil Adams on Tar and Feathering
(from link):
So: Big fucking deal, huh?
As for buring down Tory homes, I found no reference to any such prewar, from which
one may reasonably infer it was a are occurence. Once war began enemy property
was subject to destruction as it is in all wars.
Whoosh.
What’s new, pussycat?
See post #53.
He also seems to have ordered the Klan disbanded when it became too violent.
Deception is an integral part of strategy. The Art of War writes about this, and the entire D-Day invasion was based on a huge deception - a strategic concern.
I consider deception to be an essentially strategic concern. In the case of Forrest, his trick was to pretend his forces were larger, avoiding the need for tactiucal manuevuring.
You have shown no sign of being capable of making a serious point.
Dream about it.
On the contrary, taxation without representaion IS absolutely wrong, and the British
were the only ones commiting that wrong, from which followed all the events of the
American Revolution. Revolution would probably have been avoided if the British had
given the colonies a seat each in Parliament. Unfortunately for them they were not
smart enough to see the obvious
There is nothing ignoble about wishing to free one’s self from overlordship, even if
one is otherwise “upper level”, “elite”, or whatnot. And there is nothing ignoble about
being elite as long as one does not use ones status to oppress others. The American elite
created a society where any freeman might rise to political and financial leadership.
They were far ahead of the rest of the world in this regard, and so do not deserve to smeared
by their inferiors, such as you.
None of the American leadership was in any way anyone’s “pawn”. As a matter of fact
the French were thoroughly manipulated by the Americans, who in the end left France
in the lurch and without gain for all its sacrifice.
This is a silly distortion.
Arnold for quite some time had the wholehearted support of the most elite figure of all,
George Washington, and he had been seeking advancement in the revolutionary cause
since long before actual hostilites began, so his ambitions were then in no way at odds
with the elite.
Subsequent events and Arnold’s motives are obscure and complex, having to do with
such elements as marriage into a Tory family, slow advancement, other insufficient
appreciation for his services, and personal debt for which the British provided hope of indmenity.
Well golly here you speak of American “freedom and liberty” after all. And the awful
“elites” who were providing so much of leadership had nothing to do with it?
From more of that article:
Right. That sounds plenty pleasant. I don’t think you’d call it trivial if it happened to you. It’s a deliberate act to terrorize for political purpose.
As for arson, while not of a home, what about the British sloop Gaspee, which in 1772, after it had run aground chasing smugglers, was burned in Rhode Island. As far as actual arson of homes, what about the Boston mob who, in 1765, looted and burned the home of then Chief Justice Hutchinson (later Governor). Or, while, it’s not burning, the looting of the home of the Stamp Master, Andrew Oliver. Or the burning down of the coach of the acting governor of New York and the looting of home of the commander of the Fort George garrison?
What about, in 1773, the destruction of the cargoes of the ships Dartmouth, Eleanor, and Beaver? How is all this not political violence? How is it not terrorism?
OK then, if we’re getting into another demonization of Forrest, as seems to happen every time his name is mentioned here, we should also remember his 1875 speech to the Independent Order of Pole Bearers Association (an organization of black citizens dedicated to promoting voting rights):
I saw that, and if that is the worst that SOL could do in its 18 or so years
of operation then they are not guilty as charged, since an isolated few cases
of excess do not fit the definition of what it is to be a terrorist organization.
That is 1, 2 and 3 cases of arson against officials of the crown who I assume
to be British. Even if they were Colonial victims is a paltry number.
If you define all political violence as terrorism then the word has no distinctive value.
I have already said that terrorism must involve threat to life or loss of life to help
distinguish it from violence aimed only at damaging property. Even further discrimination
is necessary because otherwise conventional military engagement or guerilla warfare
might then be included in the definition of terror. Speaking of which, I would term the
events above as a form of maritime guerilla warfare.
Here is the underlying gist of the matter: you and sophists like you seek to smear
American history as suffused with terror, thereby reducing it to the level of moral
parity with true terrorists such as AQ.
Terror has existed in the US, but the KKK ihas been the only organization of any
size or longevity to adopt it.