Sherman foresaw the need for a continuing military presence – and hence a target for evil guerrillas – not to assure the freedman’s suffrage or even his basic rights so much as to protect Northern carpetbaggers coming South to make hay at the expense of the devastated region and to be sure that the South and its people became obedient ‘subjects’ of the United States government. I doubt seriously – given Sherman’s QUOTED sentiments about blacks – that their well being ever crossed his mind save only where it was necessary to use them to maintain political and social control of the conquered colonies.

Having ‘saved the Union’ by waging a war against civilians that made the Mongol horde look enlightened, Sherman then went west to continue his genocide against the American Indian. And the History Channel called him ‘misunderstood’ …. yeah.

Unless of course, you include the racial strife and violence that stalked the South from Reconstruction on. While it might be flippant to suggest that this was “the war continued” it is something to keep in mind; wars don’t end when the dotted line is signed and the guns piled up.

From what little I have read, however, it seems that both Forrest and Mosby made their OWN determination regarding surrender at the end of the war. I don’t know why this was the case with Forrest unless he was not a part of any Southern force that had already surrendered. But Mosby WAS part of the Army of Northern Virginia. Indeed, in a book with the names of the officers considered as having surrendered at Appomattox, Mosby’s name is listed. For whatever reason, he did not see fit to surrender or disband after Lee surrendered despite his own claim to being a part of that army and therefore, I would assume, subject to its fate. It was only during the final meeting with General Chapman at which time Mosby was informed of the plan to level “Mosby’s Confederacy” using 40,000 troops under Hancock, that he made the final determination to disband. Mosby himself stated that he disbanded to prevent Hancock’s continued war against the people who had supported him during the war.

In Forrest’s case, I don’t know if he was listed as belonging to a larger Confederate army or not. I DO know, however, that Sherman wrote to Grant that he feared men like Forrest AND Mosby would continue the war in their own way and that the bloodshed might go on for years. In this, however, he was proven wrong almost immediately.

Neither Forrest nor Voss was ordered to remain and surrender his forces. The choice was theirs. In Forrest’s case, it would have been highly hypocritical for Floyd to order the cavalry surrendered when he was already planning to leave the fort himself. Voss was given permission by Miles to attempt his breakout from Harpers Ferry. There was no insubordination involved in either case.

I have asked Eric to remove the truncated message I originally posted and replace it with the version from which huge chunks were dropped for some reason. If he does, perhaps you will understand the points I was making.

The statement to which I responded was by Mr. Meserves:

“Forrest refused to surrender when his ostensible ’superior’ did so and took his men out from under Union noses at night in the snow to, as previously noted, fight again another day. Gee, that sounds a lot like Arno Voss and the Union cavalry at Harpers Ferry in 1862, except for the snow, of course. That sounds more like determination than a lack of responsiveness to orders.”

To which, I then responded:

“However, it is also a fact that one man’s determination is another man’s insubordination.”

As you can see, I am in agreement with you. My point was made in response to a belief that Forrest’s actions could be considered “determination” rather than “insubordination”, a belief with which I do not concur.

I write clearly enough that this point should have been taken, but as apparently it was not, let us hope that this clarifies the matter.

As for NBF’s “”, I would assume that his usefulness far outweighed the possible consequences of his “determination/insubordination” at the time and therefore, nothing came of it. Or, perhaps the Confederates were unhappy with the decision to surrender and therefore considered Forrest’s response appropriate under the circumstances. Or, perhaps, they were scared to death of the man who seemed quite ungovernable at times (if I read the history aright). Whatever happened, obviously no move was made to remove or replace Forrest. But then, perhaps, he COULDN’T be removed OR replaced!

“However, it is also a fact that one man’s determination is another man’s insubordination.”

Valerie,

Except when you play soldier. It is insubordination, plain & simple, & a punishable ofense. None of us like everything our parents, bosses, commanders have to say. But we play the game for fear of punishment, firing, etc.

IMHO, that should have been the fate of NBF.

Mike

Secondly, I never said that any command OTHER than White’s – at least a command that was considered ‘independent’ – went into the regulars upon revocation of the Partisan Ranger Act. McNeill and Mosby were kept as partisans, whatever else was left probably either disbursed or ‘jined up’ somewhere else. Apparently, there were quite a few fellows in the area in business for themselves as well as the better known guerrilla groups. As to White, in one book I read, the author opined that White was glad to be mustered into the regulars. Perhaps he didn’t like the way things were going in northern Virginia – and who could blame him? I will tell you this, however, the Yankee press always referred to him – regular or irregular – as a guerrilla. In fact, one of the times Mosby was declared dead or too injured to return to the war, White was named by the newspaper as his successor! Frankly, I doubt that White and his Comanches being ‘mustered in’ would have saved them from being treated as guerrillas if they had fallen into the hands of the enemy. I can only surmise that Mr. Meserves misread my statement regarding White – or simply assumed it wrong by virtue the writer. C’est le guerre.

I do not, however, quite understand the point he made regarding Lee and Mosby. Both Lee and Stuart made requests (demands?) of Mosby which he endeavored to carry out. That is what I meant by my comparison to Forrest’s interaction with the regulars when he refused to surrender. I also think that there were some other contretemps involving the Confederate high command in that theater, but I cannot swear to it. Regarding the matter of surrender, however, I will only say this. At war’s end, Mosby sent a scout to ask Lee what to do – fight on or surrender. Lee told the scout that he was on parole and could not give “Colonel Mosby” any military advice. But had Lee told Mosby to surrender, I do not doubt that he would have done so as he had obeyed every order Lee had ever given him at least so far as he was able.

Furthermore, what would have been the point of sending someone to ask Lee if Mosby did not intend to do as Lee ordered? If Mosby – LIKE FORREST – intended to ‘do his own thing’, the LAST thing he would have done was contact Lee. Not knowing Lee’s desires in the matter at least gave him ‘plausible deniability’ if he determined to fight on. Somehow one has to doubt that Forrest would have bothered to consult with ANYONE before making that decision – and that’s the major difference between the two men and their command style.

Let us remember something ELSE, however with regard to ‘raiders’. I have read MANY Union accounts of Confederate cavalry actions and most of them refer to such ‘regulars’ as Stuart, Imboden et al. as ‘raiders’. Stuart’s famous ‘ride around McClellan’ was considered a ‘raid’ not much (if in fact, ANY) different from Mosby’s depredations! There is also the famous incident during one raid wherein Stuart telegraphed Union Quartermaster Meigs and complained about the quality of the mules he was stealing! But, but the same token, Kilpatrick’s raid on Beaver Dam Station early on (which bagged him a rebel ‘captain’ if I remember correctly) was no different from Confederate cavalry raids. Again, one man’s ‘raider’ is another man’s ‘soldier’.

I apologize for this message because I know you didn’t want this to turn into a Mosby thread; but some errors in Valerie’s last message need to be noted. I promise not to do this again.

>Only White’s command went into the regular service upon the revocation of the Partisan Ranger Act.If Lee had told Mosby that he wanted ‘X’ done, Mosby would have done ‘X’.Forrest refused to surrender when his ostensible ’superior’ did so and took his men out from under Union noses at night in the snow to, as previously noted, fight again another day.<

Gee, that sounds a lot like Arno Voss and the Union cavalry at Harpers Ferry in 1862, except for the snow, of course. That sounds more like determination than a lack of responsiveness to orders.

As well, neither Hanse McNeill nor John Mosby were schooled in the cavalry tactics of the day albeit Mosby at least had some tutoring by two giants in the field – Stuart and Jones. Yet, his few troops (no more than 1,000 at the most and usually considerably under that number) would hardly have made a dent in the huge Army of the Potomac – except under the circumstances in which they actually fought. As a regular command under someone like Early, the 43rd Battalion would have been decimated fairly quickly, disappearing from the pages of history.

On the other hand, remember that Morgan got ‘into Dutch’ as they used to say, when he disregarded orders and ‘did his own thing’. He went to Richmond to get support but was given the cold shoulder there by the regular military. In the same way, Forrest refused to surrender when his ostensible ‘superior’ did so and took his men out from under Union noses at night in the snow to, as previously noted, fight again another day.

I doubt that either man was anywhere near as responsive to orders from the regular military as was Mosby and McNeill. If Lee had told Mosby that he wanted ‘X’ done, Mosby would have done ‘X’. The difference here is that Lee would not have presumed to tell Mosby HOW to do ‘X’; he simply would have indicated that he wanted ‘X’ done and left the ‘how’ to Mosby. Obviously, there was a certain amount of command independence even in the regular service, but far less so than when the regular service was dealing with ‘independents’.

There is no doubt that Morgan and Forrest did cooperate with the regulars and follow orders from men like Bragg, but in at least the two incidents above it is obvious that they felt far less obligated to do so than did the officers of the ‘regulars’ or even than the partisans in the Eastern Theater. I have no doubt as well, that had either man been less successful, efforts might have been made to make of their ‘independence’ a matter of court martial. But both were popular heroes in the South and I don’t believe that Richmond considered it ‘politic’ to press the matter. Heck, the regulars fought enough amongst each other, for heaven’s sake! Didn’t two Confederate generals engage in a duel that killed one of them?

Parenthetically, one has to wonder how the EASTERN theater would have survived with Bragg in charge rather than either Johnston or Lee. Now THERE’S fodder for a thread! Certainly the partisans in that region would have had a very different time of it than they did!

Then why did Bragg employ Forrest and Morgan as partisans?

On a large scale, larger than back east, of course?